Given these factors, covering nanotechnology as a techno-sociological phenomenon is wholly appropriate. The article misuses the name of Richard Feynman. Molecular nanotechnologists tend to use Feynman's name as evidence for their claims only when it suits them. The article was biased. Scientific American is, if anything, biased in favor of new technologies and scientific concepts.
Nanotechnology is an exciting idea.
But one of the jobs of good journalism is to determine whether some dreams are simply that. The article contains extensive passages in which Drexler and other proponents make their case for nanotechnology. None of the chemists who gave presentations at the Foresight conference wrote to protest the portrayal of their views in the article. In fact, responses to the article from chemists and other professionals have been positive, congratulating us on pointing out shortcomings that more congratulatory articles about nanotechnology generally overlook. The article fails to show that nanotechnology is impossible.