Occasionally, when people write texts an error finds its way into the content. Of course, we are not excluded from this. As we aim to provide valid information and full transparency, we do not want such errors to be corrected in silence and secrecy, but rather as openly as possible. Therefore, today, we start a new page with corrections.
With that said, one mistake made on our side was on the subject of alternatives to animal testing. Originally, it was stated that the goal of in vitro testing is to improve animal testing (refine) and to reduce the number of animals used in experiments. Unfortunately, this is a misleading implementation of the 3Rs (replace, reduce & refine). In vitro tests are a classic example of replacement, whereby animal experiments are replaced with alternatives.
What the author of the text actually wanted to express was that in vitro tests are not a panacea that could replace all animal tests, but rather contribute in the long-term to their reduction. Therefore, we have removed the references from “Refinement” and “Reduction” and listed a second example, where in vitro tests as an alternative question: neuroscientific basic research, trying to understand how perception, memory, and decision making processes in the brain.
