Today, most pharmaceuticals are developed by the government. Private corporations take existing research and medicines, tweak them enough to be considered 'different', give them new names and then market them heavily to uncritical citizens. Corporations act as parasites. [1][2]
> Nationalizing it will politicize pharmaceuticals
Please could you read the etymology of 'political'? Everything is an ongoing dialogue. To me it's implicit that everything is political, because society is constantly evolving. What is not an ongoing debate or dialogue? Science is a constant renegotiation. New hypotheses and theories are formulated all the time, as well as a constantly shifting diversity of approach and apparatus. Things constantly evolve, new technologies emerge, new medicines come out etc.. Open dialogue is a core pillar of a healthy democracy, where we continuously re-explore and re-frame our understanding of the world around us.
How I see it, something doesn't 'become' political in the way you suggest, at all. It has always been political already. With your 'politicize' argument you erase any earlier historic debate and turn it into a black and white frame, lacking any nuance.
This means politics is reduced to two modes:
1. something is non-political - because I agree with the policy, vs. 2. something is political - because I disagree with it.
I see the term 'political' used as a pejorative like this by ignorant people who first deny the nature of the ongoing debate of democratic governance. When they see someone proposing a strategy they don't agree with, they use the word 'political' as a scare tactic.
Please do not fall in this trap and share unsupported claims simply because you might not understand the dynamics enough to have an informed decision. Please do not scaremonger, because you are just shutting down healthy debate. Please could you explore others' perspectives and give more context of your own (for example by sharing your background/skills) so we can understand your angle? Or at the least could you come with sources to back up your arguments, so that we can understand what you see, and how?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-b...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160430010410/https://www.washi...