There's probably under-claimed win-wins between the two groups. The problem is that the existing institutions for mediating the conflict are extremely high-friction. eg strawman: have a rule that buildings that are in the top 50 percentile of making neighborhood aesthetics types happy pay 0.1% less property tax, and the rest pay 0.1% more that would probably get you significantly better aesthetics, with very low cost to efficiency or freedom or dynanism or other good things? eg strawman 2: keep big pharma but make the incentives favor a much more open-science approach to safety and efficacy verification you get significantly better public trust, with very low cost to scientists being able to do their thing?