1. What is nanotechnology?
Simson Garfinkel says that Howard Craighead defines nanotechnology as advanced microtechnology, while Rick L. Danheiser defines it as synthetic organic chemistry. As this shows, these fields already have names. So far as I can tell, it was I who introduced the term "nanotechnology" into general use, and as Mr. Garfinkel's paragraph on my usage suggests, there is no commonly accepted alternative name for the capabilities that "nanotechnology" is generally taken to describe. lf this technology is important, then it needs to be discussed and it needs a brief, unambiguous name. Sticking with the original meaning of 'nanotechnology' would be useful for this reason. (There is no perfectly clear line between synthetic organic chemistry and nanotechnology, but neither is there a perfectly clear line between night and day; they are distinct, though one leads to the next.)
2. Why are computer scientists prevalent among those interested in nanotechnology?
Chemists and physicists are best placed to critique proposals in nanotechnology, but their orientation is that of scientists, not of engineers. The tend to focus on what can be studied today, not on what can be built tomorrow. Computer scientists (despite their name) are, in this sense, engineers. Further, they recognise the value of tiny, fast, controllable things, and they are habituated to technological revolution.