In the early 80s, and the great scientist and engineer Eric Drexler came up with the term “nanotechnology” to describe a manufacturing technology that builds products from the atoms up. Around the turn of the century, the term was hijacked to mean anything involving nanometer-scale features, like modern computer chips. Technically, this means you could use the word “nanotechnology” to mean anything, because practically everything has nanoscale features that play a role in its overall properties. The result is that the original meaning of the word “nanotechnology” went kaput, and nanotech enthusiasts had to start saying “molecular nanotechnology” or “molecular manufacturing” to refer to what they were talking about.

Around 2001 or so, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology started using the term “nanofactories” to describe desktop molecular manufacturing units. Now it seems like a group of researchers is attempting to hijack this word too, even though I’m sure they well know that the word already has an established meaning. From ScienceDaily:

The list of side effects on your prescription bottle may one day be a
lot shorter, according to researchers at the University of Maryland’s
A. James Clark School of Engineering.

That’s because instead of taking a conventional medication, you may
swallow tiny “nanofactories,” biochemical machines that act like
cells, first conceived of at the Clark School.

For example, these ingested nanofactories, using magnetism, could
detect a bacterial infection, produce a medication using the body’s
own materials, and deliver a dose directly to the bacteria. The drug
would do its work only at the infection site, and thus not cause th
side effects that may arise when an antibiotic travels throughout the
body in search of infections.

William Bentley, professor and chair of the Fischell Department of
Bioengineering at the Clark School, and several graduate students
including Rohan Fernandes, have developed this “magnetic nanofactory”
concept and published their research in Metabolic Engineering in
December of last year. Colleagues around the country voiced their
support for the technology in Nature Nanotechnology last month.

Artificial cells are not nanofactories! A “nanofactory” is a desktop manufacturing system! Why does the mainstream constantly steal cutting-edge terminology and water it down? My guess is that the word “nanofactory” is being used here instead of “artificial cell” or “nanobot” because a “factory” sounds more benign and neutral. People might not want to think of the idea of autonomous little robots in their bloodstream, so “nanofactories” sounds better. But they’re stepping all over the prior use of the term! Researchers know how to use Google, and I’m sure they saw the term on other websites, but they just didn’t really care.