Actually, it seems not. His job seems to have been quite peripheral to that, but he was supposed to alert Taub if the caretakers screwed up. Now, you can argue that he didn’t - but I don’t know how easy Taub would have been to get hold of. He did alert authorities. He also documented the current status with film, which may or may not have been value-neutral (in that situation I would certainly want hard data on everything).
“His job seems to have been quite peripheral to that, but he was supposed to alert Taub if the caretakers screwed up.”
I’m not sure you recognize how contradictory your sentence is. If he was supposed to alert Taub (the director of the research) if subpar care of the animals occurred then his job was not peripheral to that. This was an important task because that particular research project could be invalidated by subpar care through the introduction of variables that could not be controlled.
As far as the other lab personal, it was reported that they were animal activists as well working in concert with Pacheco.
“A 1990 Washingtonian Magazine article also alleged that Pacheco’s snapshots had been staged with the help of another lab technician. “
You seem intent on defending Pacheco so I’ll leave you with the last word. The is just something we’ll agree to disagree about.