Drexler's article says:
———————–

The problem started with the word. In labeling the
Feynman vision nanotechnology (Drexler, 1986), the
author chose a word with roots that let it fit any
nanoscale technology no matter how old or mundane.
The excitement of the Feynman vision attached itself
to the word, tempting specialists to relabel their
nanoscale research as nanotechnology.

————————

So are you saying that in fact specialists were NOT re-labeling their work because Taniguchi's prior label of "nanotechnology" already described their work?

Are you saying that it was Drexler, instead, who attempted to re-label his work with Taniguchi's label?

Taniguchi was the first to use the term "nanotechnology," He presented the term in 1974:
——————————————-

N. Taniguchi, "On the Basic Concept of 'Nano-Technology'," Proc. Intl. Conf. Prod. Eng.
Tokyo, Part II, Japan Society of Precision Engineering, 1974.

On the Basic Concept of ëNano-Technologyí
Norio TANIGUCHI
Tokyo Science University
Noda-shi, Chiba-ken, 278 Japan

Abstract

ëNano-technologyí is the production technology to get the extra high accuracy and ultra
fine dimensions, i.e., the preciseness and fineness of the order of 1 nm (nanometer), 10-9
m in length. The name of ëNano-technologyí originates from this nanometer. In the
processing of materials, the smallest bit size of stock removal, accretion, or flow of
materials is probably of one atom or one molecule, namely 0.1~0.2 nm in length.
Therefore, the expected limit size of fineness would be of the order of 1 nm. Accordingly,
ëNano-technologyí mainly consists of the processing of separation, consolidation, and
deformation of materials by one atom or one molecule. Needless to say, the measurement
and controll (sic) techniques to assure the preciseness and fineness of 1 nm play very
important role in this technology.

In the present paper, the basic concept of ëNanotechnologyí in materials processing is
discussed on the basis of microscopic behaviour of materials and as a result the ion
sputter-machining is introduced as the most promissing (sic) process for the technology.

The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom. It is not an attempt to violate any laws; it is something, in principle, that can be done; but in practice, it has not been done because we are too big.

Ultimately, we can do chemical synthesis. A chemist comes to us and says, “Look, I want a molecule that has the atoms arranged thus and so; make me that molecule.'' The chemist does a mysterious thing when he wants to make a molecule. He sees that it has got that ring, so he mixes this and that, and he shakes it, and he fiddles around. And, at the end of a difficult process, he usually does succeed in synthesizing what he wants. By the time I get my devices working, so that we can do it by physics, he will have figured out how to synthesize absolutely anything, so that this will really be useless.

This is a very well detailed historical perspective with several important insights. People should take the time to read it as it provides the basis for explaining in large part how we got to where we are now and hints at how overhyping and misinterpretation of what nanotechnology is and can do could lead to a negative backlash that would delay overall development. That would probably be undesirable.