Defining the new discipline simply by "interface between this and that
discipline" is confusing and counterproductive. The discipline must be
defined as a unique or new one based on its unique set of principles,
tools, assumptions or areas of research it hopes to fill. Clearly a
discipline isn't just a mix-n-match combinatorics of titles...
otherwise we can go on establishing, for example,
biological-chemical-biology or chemical-chemical-biology as new
branches of science, just because one or the other pole of the chemical
biology has higher fraction of chemical or biological influence in it
that the conventional one. Chemical biology isn't just simple "blend",
or "interface", or "linear combination". It is, in fact, based on
principles, tools and "dreams" that are distinct from classical
chemistry or biology. In the very simplest case it can be compared to
molecular biology. The latter emerged from realization of
DNA-RNA-protein interconnections and their influence on biological
outcome. The chemical biology builds upon this by adding fourth axis of
non-DNA, non-RNA and non-proteins-like molecules which, however, can
regulate (or be regulated by) all three mentioned above. Clearly, this
3D to 4D transition comprises the new field, because (a) the 4D space
of chemical biology could not be accessed or ever "dreamed of" in
conventional "3D biological" world; (b) addition of biological axes to
conventional chemistry opens new dimensions for growth hardly possible
with pure chemistry. First examples that come to mind would be: for (a)
regulation of any biological process with specific small molecule
regulator; and for (b) total syntheses of any molecules using enzyme
complexes (e.g. non-ribosomal peptide or polyketide synthesis
complexes, or related). Of course both are just dreams at this point,
however, both are exclusively "chemical biology dreams" not allowed for
orthodox biologists or chemists to dream of.