If the bad wood working would jepordize the results of his, professional salary earning, work then he should probably consider learning wood working, no?
There may be some classes of scientific programming which have simple enough models for a software engineer to implement. Scientific programming that relies on deep understanding of the domain and mathematical models employed to study it don't fit in that category.
Just because some scientific disciplines require extensive programming doesn’t make those scientists good software engineers: Producing an algorithm is different from generating revenue from it.
Many professions have tool/skill requirements that are not related to that profession on a strict sense, but are still necessary to do the job properly.
When I learned engineering we were taught how to draw diagrams by hand and write in a technical font. Computer code, for many science fields, is like diagrams but for theories.
And I'd say that illustrates my point even better! A scientist needs to know how to write a paper, but that doesn’t make them a great author. When they aim to write a book, they should get help from a professional publisher. Both tasks require writing text, but a book is very different from a paper and requires heaps of additional training and knowledge that scientists usually don’t need to have.
This is also widely considered a huge issue in academia. The dissemination is so bad that a lot of great research is never read by others.
Academia is not a business. They barely can sustain themselves, therefore, they need to do things themselves. It is though to be a physicist. Mostly because you, besides being a great physicist, also need to be a good programmer and a good author.