Visualization has matured into an established research field, producing widely adopted tools, design frameworks, and empirical foundations. As the field has grown, ideas from outside computer science have increasingly entered visualization discourse, questioning the fundamental values and assumptions on which visualization research stands. In this short position paper, we examine a set of values that we see underlying the seminal works of Jacques Bertin, John Tukey, Leland Wilkinson, Colin Ware, and Tamara Munzner. We articulate three prominent values in these texts — universality, objectivity, and efficiency — and examine how these values permeate visualization tools, curricula, and research practices. We situate these values within a broader set of critiques that call for more diverse priorities and viewpoints. By articulating these tensions, we call for our community to embrace a more pluralistic range of values to shape our future visualization tools and guidelines.

We contribute an in-depth analysis of the workflows and tensions arising from generative AI (genAI) use in biomedical visualization (BioMedVis). Although genAI affords facile production of aesthetic visuals for biological and medical content, the architecture of these tools fundamentally limits the accuracy and trustworthiness of the depicted information, from imaginary (or fanciful) molecules to alien anatomy. Through 17 interviews with a diverse group of practitioners and researchers, we qualitatively analyze the concerns and values driving genAI (dis)use for the visual representation of spatially-oriented biomedical data. We find that BioMedVis experts, both in roles as developers and designers, use genAI tools at different stages of their daily workflows and hold attitudes ranging from enthusiastic adopters to skeptical avoiders of genAI. In contrasting the current use and perspectives on genAI observed in our study with predictions towards genAI in the visualization pipeline from prior work, we refocus the discussion of genAI's effects on projects in visualization in the here and now with its respective opportunities and pitfalls for future visualization research. At a time when public trust in science is in jeopardy, we are reminded to first do no harm, not just in biomedical visualization but in science communication more broadly. Our observations reaffirm the necessity of human intervention for empathetic design and assessment of accurate scientific visuals. Supplemental study materials are available at https://osf.io/genaixbiomedvis/.