Imagine a world where we could protect wildlife and livestock from deadly diseases without causing stress or harm. That's the ambitious goal behind a revolutionary invention that could change the way we approach animal vaccinations forever. But here's where it gets controversial: could this technology finally offer a humane alternative to badger culling in the fight against bovine TB?
The story begins with Cinta, a shy tiger at the London Zoo. Cinta refused to eat when zookeepers were nearby, presenting a real challenge: how could they administer vital vaccinations without traumatizing her? Tony Cholerton, a zookeeper with a background in motorcycle engineering, took on the challenge. His innovative solution? Robovacc, a machine designed to deliver injections quickly and efficiently, without any human presence.
Cholerton used a remote control, originally intended for toy airplanes, to operate the device from a nearby room. Robovacc successfully vaccinated Cinta in her feeding area. The tiger barely noticed, pausing briefly mid-meal as the needle pricked her hindquarters, then calmly resuming her dinner. It was a resounding success!
After 30 years at the London Zoo, Cholerton retired in late 2025. But his invention's journey was just beginning. He now envisions a fully automated version of Robovacc, dubbed Autovacc, tackling some of wildlife's most pressing challenges, specifically the controversial role of badgers in the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB) to cattle.
For over a decade, England has been embroiled in a heated debate over badger culling. While wildlife charities champion badger vaccination as a humane alternative, the government has maintained culling as a necessary measure. However, the primary cause of bovine TB in cattle is actually transmission between other cows. Badger vaccination can contribute to disease control, but it’s an expensive and time-consuming process. It involves trapping badgers, often holding them overnight, before a trained vaccinator can administer the injection. And this is the part most people miss: the stress on the animals can be significant.
Autovacc promises a radical improvement. Cholerton's automated machine could vaccinate an entire badger colony (up to 20 individuals) without any human involvement. Each badger would only be detained for a minute or two, minimizing stress and maximizing efficiency.
"The dream is to see it used by scientists and farmers," Cholerton explains. He believes mass production of his prototypes could be surprisingly affordable. "This is about giving the scientists the means to show that the science is correct, and badger vaccination works. The farmers win because they have a means to solve the TB problem in cattle. Everyone wins."
Robovacc's success at the London Zoo extended beyond Cinta. Vets adapted versions of the machine to vaccinate lions and Diana monkeys. Cholerton observed that it worked best on carnivores, who seemed more tolerant of the brief pinprick. Primates, on the other hand, tended to remember the experience and avoid the machine afterward. This suggests Autovacc could be particularly valuable for vaccinating captive carnivore species, such as Amur leopards, where minimizing human interaction is crucial for successful reintroduction to the wild. Cholerton spent his evenings perfecting his invention, developing a fully automatic version equipped with three sensors to precisely detect an animal's muscular rear end.
The badger version of the machine has already been successfully tested on ring-tailed coatis, which, like badgers, readily enter tunnels. The system works by luring the animal into a clear Perspex tunnel with food bait. Smart technology prevents repeat vaccinations by spraying vaccinated animals with harmless nanoparticles that stick to their fur. If an animal returns to the tunnel, sensors detect the nanoparticles, and a door opens, guiding it to a separate exit.
Unvaccinated animals are directed to the vaccination section, where their movement is briefly restricted to position their hindquarters against the sensors. In a fraction of a second, a needle is deployed from behind a protective sheath, delivering the injection. Multiple safety mechanisms prevent the animal from bending or breaking the needle, or from escaping with the needle still attached. Once the injection is complete, the doors open, and the animal is released.
Cholerton's next step is to involve conservation scientists, wildlife charities currently overseeing badger vaccination programs, and even interested farmers in trialing Autovacc. "This has got to be a collaboration," he emphasizes. "The more interest the better. It would just be nice to see it being used with wild animals and undertaking vaccinations in a way that isn’t too invasive."
He hopes that if Autovacc proves to be a humane and effective method for badger vaccination, the government will be compelled to adopt this approach over culling. Rosie Wood, chair of the Badger Trust, acknowledges the potential benefits of the technology. "Vaccination of any wild species is stressful for the animal concerned so it’s heartening to know that jab-shy captive wild species can now be vaccinated stress free," she says. "There are many possible future applications for the technology – most I suspect are ones we haven’t thought of yet but might be the next zoonotic pandemic, so investment in it should be taken seriously."
But Wood also raises a critical point. While badger vaccination can demonstrate that badger populations can be kept free of bovine TB, it doesn't necessarily translate to a measurable impact on TB rates in cattle. "Even Defra now concedes it is not possible to prove any measurable impact on bovine TB rates in cattle as a result of badger culling – and as killing them isn’t working, vaccinating them won’t either," she said.
So, is Autovacc a game-changer in the fight against bovine TB, or just a more humane approach to a problem that requires a more complex solution? Could focusing on cattle-to-cattle transmission be a more effective strategy? And ultimately, should we prioritize the well-being of badgers, even if it doesn't significantly impact TB rates in cattle? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below!
