Scientific images function as critical evidence in research communication, yet their integrity faces unprecedented threats from AI-generated content that introduces subtle but consequential errors. Existing evaluation paradigms prove inadequate: perceptual quality metrics poorly correlate with scientific validity, while language models lack domain-specific verification capabilities. To address this gap, we propose the \textbf{S}cientific \textbf{I}mage \textbf{U}tility and \textbf{U}pgradability \textbf{A}ssessment (\textbf{SIU$^2$A}) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. \textbf{Utility} encompasses \textit{error detection} (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and \textit{correction feasibility} (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). \textbf{Upgradability} measures the quality of correction. We categorize scientific image corruption into four fundamental types: Detail Distortion, Incompleteness, False Content, and Entity Confusion. Based on this taxonomy, we construct SIU$^2$A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the \textit{Utility} stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the \textit{Upgradability} stage assesses whether corrections faithfully restore scientific validity without compromising existing accurate information. Experiments reveal that current multimodal systems exhibit significant limitations in both scientific error assessment and faithful correction, exposing a fundamental gap between visual perception and scientific usability.