Why there is bioethics, but no chemethics or physethics?

>>3293581
>Implying physical and chemical stuff have eternal soul granted by God

Since both you mentioned can potentially be abused, I see no reason why there shouldn't be.

>>3293581
chemists and physicists are robots that don't give a shit about someone's hurt fee-fees

>>3293581
Yada yada eugenics, souls, animal testing, etc.

>>3293581
ethics only applies to bios, not chems

>>3293581
Chemistry is analytical.
Physics is theoretical.
Biology is derivative and involves principles of both Chemistry and Physics. Biology is pertaining and relative to Humans (even when you are studying, say, a Non-terrestrial organism, you do so in relation to Humans). Hence, Ethics, which is born of Humans is applied to Biology.
Chemistry and Physics are absolutes and no outcome is directly correlated to humans, their presence or a derivative effect on humans.
We use Chemistry and Physics to understand our place but even if we were not here, the core principles would exist still. Like there will still be a diamond planet out in the Universe, even if we would not consider it shiny and precious.

Only chemo-ethics I could think of would be "why make x compound for the sole purpose of research and creating it when it could put lives in danger".

I remember thinking about this when reading about one compound on here that is stabilized for shipping by crystallizing it with TNT.