I don’t think so. I think people should make better use of the expertise around them.
We acknowledge, accept, and expect that being a professional academic requires a wide range of skills beyond just knowledge of a particular set of content. It is time to make graphic literacy part of that expected skill set.
Some skills are basic to your core enterprise, some are not. In my opinion it is almost always better to leverage expertise outside of the immediate core skills, when it’s available.
Graphic illustration is not core to science. There are good reasons that better research departments have an illustrations department.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there is no place to do your own poster or to make use of those that through self-motivation or earlier work want to take on graphics too. I’m just saying insisting it be a required skill seems misplaced.
DoctorZen offers writing and statistics as being comparable skills to graphics work.
A basic standard of writing is to be expected of science graduates. That pretty much goes without saying, really, but having said that I sometimes wonder if research departments should make use of local PIOs (press information officers), etc., as informal copy editors of their papers. (Most researchers will as a matter of course put the drafts past colleagues’ critical eyes.)
Statistics in one sense is a core skill, but non-statisticans are really best to work with a specialist statistician guiding them. In fact you’re best to sort of out the statistics at the time of writing the grant application and/or designing the experiment.
I see this in bioinformatics, too. It is relatively easy to paste data into a web browser to get some some sort of ’result’: whether that is the appropriate result, or if opportunities were missed through not being beware of alternative or more subtle analysis is another matter.
I hope readers are seeing an emergent pattern. Don’t go it alone with everything, use the expertise around you. There is truth, I think, in that some scientists are poor at ’letting go’, letting others with appropriate expertise cover part of the work.
One thing that really should be a core skill is plotting graphs. (Don’t get me started…)
The balance is what is your time best spent on. Consider the time involved in up-skilling, the frequency you would re-use that skill, the mistakes you will inevitably make, and their cost to you professionally and financially, and so on. Is it really a skill that you should take on, or one you should effectively out-source?
I have a tiny bit of an art background. Ancient history now really, but ‘my thing’ as a high school student was art, not science. When I listen to graphic design people talking about the challenges presenting some item, some of the basic themes ring bells (and back happy memories, too).
If you’re so inclined it’s fun to illustrate, and I wouldn’t want to take that from anyone. But it can be time-consuming if you lack practice and, like statistics, bioinformatics and other skills, I think the wise might start by first running their plan by the local expert. You might even find with a little further exploration that in many cases you’d be better to give the job to them.
(And, yes, you’ll lose a little ‘control’, but if that’s bugging you, perhaps it’s time to learn not to be such a control freak?)
This follow-up at Bioemphemera may interest readers. (No commenting over there; share your thoughts below.)
 You’re welcome to show why researchers should take this on as a core ‘essential’ skill: don’t confuse my forthright statement for dogmatism!
 This fits into a wider view I have on how science communication from within universities might be better tackled. A topic for another day.
 I did at times think that electron microscopy or the like would have been an ideal fit for me. Mix imaging, biophysics, an interest in illustration and photography, and computer programming and it’d wouldn’t have been a bad ‘fit’ at all. If there is anything I’m interested in ‘illustrating’ these days, it’d be the three-dimensional structure and dynamics of the eukaryote nucleus, especially at a molecular level. (That’s more computational biology than illustration.)
Other articles on Code for life: