Well so long as they realize that science fictions often get things wrong. For instance describing thick drifts of dust on the Moon deep enough for an entire surface passenger vehicle to sink into, or missions to the Moon with no contact to Earth until they get back (through misundersanding how the Heavyside layer works). Or spaceships traveling faster than light piloted by astronauts using sliderules.

Or further back, being fired to the Moon in a gun and surviving the launch.

In the area that interests me, then science fiction about Mars has over and over painted it as far more habitable than it is. For instance, the Barsoom novels, many of them written after scientists had already figured out Mars didn't have enough oxygen for humans to breath - that's an early result from the 1920s. Science fiction describing terraforming optimistically shows a process that can be completed in a few generatons rather than thousands of years. And with technology that is nowhere near up to the task. Because sci. fi. authors are permitted to fudge the numbers in interests of a good story.

But on the plus side fiction does engage people. And I'm something of a science fiction fan myself. It does fire the imagination.

But -it's not good for predicting the future. Sometimes it gets things right but just because so much sci. fi. is written then from time to time someone will get something right.

Asimov has a giant computer, with just one computer to a country, the size of a small town. Teleprinter like spooling tapes of paper used to communicate between spaceships capable of faster than light travel.

And science fiction is written to entertain. E.g. the storm at the start of the Martian. He says that he knew that it couldn't possibly do any harm at all. The strongest storms on Mars are equivalent to a light breeze on Earth just able to lift an autumn leaf. No way it could blow anything away or threaten the stability of a spaceship launch. He knew that but wrote it in anyway for dramatic effect. And nothing wrong with that, it is fiction after all.

But, seems the idea is to go both ways. To inspire the artists to write more scientifically accurate fiction, and then their imaginations to help the engineers.

I could see that working.  Because we are going to get lots more science fiction anyway. So scientifically accurate - so much the better!

I'd like for instance to see some science fiction stories about Mars that really treat planetary protection seriously. E.g. astronauts in orbit exploring Mars via telepresence. Perhaps exploring the moons of Mars first.

Stories where a sample is returned from Mars to above GEO rather than to the Earth surface, to protect Earth from extraterrestrial biology.

And also - that deal properly with the issues of cosmic radiation, and of weightlessness, health problems, and the need to do shorter voyages first before heading off to Mars.

I wish I could write such stories myself.

But they may just be more stories about colonizing Mars, to boost the idea that it is practical to send humans to Mars and to colonize the planet. Since I don't think it is a very habitable planet at all, I see that as potentially reinforcing a perception the general public has about Mars which is incorrect. And inspire engineers towards that goal, which I don't think is a worthwhile goal, not at this stage.

And then distract us from things we can do. E.g. if the sci. fi. is all pro Mars, when the Moon is the best place for humans to explore, where we are most useful, and if it turns out it is best to do shorter missions to the Moon first, as many think - it could actually hinder than help future exploration.

So, depends how it is done.