Scientific American said that nothing has happened in nanotechnology since 1986 when Engines of Creation was published. The original story conflated two very different definitions of nanotechnology , thus creating a muddle. In their defense, they claim neither Eric Drexler nor I objected to this. It is usually not possible to determine that a term is used consistently in a work without reviewing the entire work. It's difficult to be accurate without asking people to read your work before publishing it, but that's their policy and their problem, not ours.
Scientists pass around preprints and ask for comments.
This is a fine way to catch errors of exactly the type that Scientific American committed. Evidently, Scientific American failed to grasp its import. In their defense, Scientific American argues that they included favorable statements about nanotechnology . This is not accurate. There are passages where the logical consequences of such a technology are explained, but these passages do not address feasibility.