“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.
You seem intent on defending Pacheco
Not really. I just like facts.
Washingtonian magazine settled its third lawsuit in 10 weeks yesterday, agreeing to apologize to an animal rights group and to make an unspecified donation to the animal rights movement.
The $3 million libel suit by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) named freelance writer Katie McCabe for her February 1990 article, titled "Beyond Cruelty." The magazine, which paid for McCabe's defense, agreed to "acknowledge that some of the statements in the article are incorrect and others require clarification," and to express "sincere regrets for any difficulties caused by …