A picture speaks a thousand words. There are concepts in science that could be better understood with a drawing than with words. Art could not only depict the necessary information to students to aid them in forming a visual imprint within their head, it could also beautify the concept to make it more appealing to study. For example, the understanding of the evolution of Darwin's finches can be enhanced by the sketching of different and distinct traits of the birds. Hence, in the pedagogy of science, art is hardly exclusive.
I think it's pretty creative to turn a chemistry thesis into a comic book. It's a more interesting way of presenting the material and graphics may make it more memorable. Plus, it could probably be translated into a simplified version for the general public. I think art and creativity certainly have a place in science.
When we gaze upon a work of art, we rarely think about the technical aspects that went in to creating it. There is lighting, subject placement, the use of color and so much more involved, depending on the medium. Sure, a lot of great artists are born with talent but many more study to master the particular area of their choice. There is a scientific method involved in the teaching and learning needed to produce great works of art.
Based on the fastest-growing industries, it is clear that science education is becoming more important every day. The incorporation of art into science education may be a great technique for creative and visual learners, but the art aspect is not vital for all learners in order to be successful in this field.
Art is not vital to science education. In fact, art is not vital to anything related to education. Art is all fine and well. But, it is overrated in the lexicon of the American public. The world would go on just fine without art. It won't go on just fine without physics.