Tissue engineered scaffolds are an integral part of future regenerative efforts, whether as carriers for stem cells and growth factors, or as acellular supports on their own. These scaffolds will be inserted at the site of injury, aim to provide temporary mechanical support and promote appropriate cell attachment and growth. Millions of dollars are spent on the development of biomaterial scaffolds, with many put into animal studies and clinical use without proper evaluation, often leading to unfavourable outcomes and associated patient morbidity.We exposed two novel scaffolds designed for use in tendon regeneration to a series of in vitro tests, the first a decellularised extracellular matrix (ECM), the second a silk-like material. SEM images were taken to evaluate scaffold nanostructure. Primary human dendritic cells were exposed to scaffolds, with FACS analysis of cell-surface activation markers determining scaffold immunogenicity. Growth of primary tenocytes was analysed using live-dead staining and alamarBlue® fluorescence, for cytocompatability. While, phenotypic retention was assessed through real-time PCR analysis of tenocytic genes.The decellularised ECM demonstrated low activation in the dendritic cell assay, suggesting low immunogenicity. The cytocompatability assays and real-time PCR analyses suggested that the material was indeed suitable for cell growth and differentiation. However, during the third biological repeat, no cells grew on the material, nor did they on the fourth and fifth repeat. In retrospect it appears that following the second repeat a new batch was tested, with very different properties to the first, which accounted for the reduced cytocompatability.The silk-like material produced some of the most repeatable and promising results with the cytocompatability and real-time PCR analyses, while the SEM demonstrated intertwined fibres suitable for cell alignment. However, the immunogenicity assay demonstrated that this material invoked high activation of the primary human dendritic cells, suggesting the material would be unsuitable for in vivo implantation.These studies have highlighted that without stringent testing in vitro, great time and expense would have been spent taking these materials forward for animal studies and potentially clinical studies, when clearly they are not suitable for these in their current incarnation.