I'd like to share with you all the fantastic line-up of early career chemists from across all disciplines and sectors that we have arranged for YMS2014.

There is still time to register for this great chance to network with your peers and form interdisciplinary contacts that we know will so important in the future for success. Registration closes on Friday 6th of June.

You can find out more and register online at www.rsc-yms.co.uk

Ann Widdecombe writes in the Guardian about the urgent need for reform to Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is open for consultation at the moment as EU legislation is accounted for.

The current legislation makes any disclosure of the details of animal experiments a criminal offence. Whilst it should be made clear that the UK has some of the most stringent regulations surrounding the use of animals in research in the world, I agree that this blanket of secrecy is excessive and hampers public understanding of the need for the judicious use of animals in research. This has been recognised by some of the major funding bodies, research institutes and companies who have signed a Concordat on Openness on Animal Research to improve openness and increase scrutiny.

The government proposes instead to make malicious disclosure of people, places of intellectual property a criminal offence, meaning all other details can be disclosed and full details could be disclosed with the applicant's consent.

To me, this seems a sensible and proportionate response, that opens up this area to more scrutiny and informed debate whilst, crucially, protecting researchers and research institutions, if they so wish.

This is not enough for both Ann and animal rights organisations such as NAVS, who are calling instead for the complete repeal of this Act. This is because they believe in essence that all animal experiments are redundant, and indeed the NAVS website has many examples of cases where animal testing failed to detect an adverse reaction. I am confident that for very example they present, there are far more cases where animal testing has been extremely useful, both in driving our understanding of biology and pathology as well as detecting toxicity prior to human trials.

The fact is that nobody likes the idea of testing in animals. As NAVS correctly points out, the data from animal testing are often highly variable, difficult to interpret and hard to translate to humans. These difficulties of course explain why there is some much repetition of animal experiments – it is necessary to confirm observations. The cost of such experiments also contributes to a large proportion of the total cost of drug discovery (some $0.5-5 billion per drug launched, depending on which numbers you care to believe).

Given this cost, and the drive for efficiency savings that are plaguing the pharmaceutical companies, the question I would like answered by those in favour of abolishing animal testing completely is: If there are suitable, cheaper and more effective replacements for animal testing, why are pharmaceutical companies continuing to save money by sacking scientists instead of abandoning animal tests?

The answer is, of course, that there are yet NO SUITABLE REPLACEMENTS FOR ANIMAL TESTING that covers the diverse requirements of safety and efficacy required by the regulators of the pharmaceutical industry. These regulations are designed to protect clinical trial participants from undue risk and are of paramount concern. The fact that there has been a decrease in the number of procedures for toxiciology shows that we are taking steps in the right direction, but we are not even close to avoiding the need for any animal testing.

We must continue to reduce, replace and refine our use of animals, and update our regulation accordingly, if the abolition of animal testing in drug discovery is to become a reality. Until then, it it only right that researcher's rights to privacy are fully protected.

Usually, I am woken up by the unmistakable screeching of the seagull that lives on my roof, but last Monday morning I rose before him to give a talk to some students. The reason for my early start was not that this school was in some far corner of the Highlands and Islands, but rather to a school in Bucharest which was two hours ahead.

Now I've delivered presentations on medicinal chemistry to students of all ages (my toughest challenge yet was explaining drug discovery to six year olds! Seriously, try explaining medicinal chemistry without using the words synthetic, synthesis, synthesise or parameter!) and to classrooms of all sizes (300 students in Ballymeana, Northern Ireland is my record), so I was surprised to find I was nervous about this one.

I've only ever used Skype to deliver a presentation during an interview process in Switzerland. It must have gone well, because I got called for a face-to-face interview (but not the job in the end), but it was one of the most harrowing experiences of my life to date. This would be a level above that, because I was completely unsure as to what awaited me on the other end of the line.

I pride myself on delivering dynamic presentations, but these utilise a lot of body language, which was now rendered impossible. Additionally, I use jokes and colloquialisms, but would  they translate to a non-British audience? Come to think of it, what would the students level of English be and would they even be able to comprehend my Irish accent? Dropping a few jokes is easy, but six years in the UK has yet to rid me of my accent (thank God!).

Of course, setting up a Skype presentation takes two - and I have to give credit to the teacher, Mr. Thompson for going beyond the call of duty on this one. As an experienced outreacher (is that a word?), I'm pretty good for spotting the great teachers who will instantly reply to every email from the ones who will have you turn up at the school hoping someone will answer the door! Mr. Thompson was certainly in the former category.

As for the students, well I needn't have worried. After 20 minutes of waffle from yours truly, they proceeded to grill me for an hour on all aspects of the drug discovery process. Clearly inspired by "The Case of the Frozen Addicts" (a study they were working on in class), I was asked questions on purity and characterisation to toxicity and side effects. Some of the questions were clearly prepared in advance, and were really insightful. Others were more spontaneous, but by God did they hit on really critical points.

Led by the students we wandered far from the basics of drug discovery to discussions about innovation, the state of the patent system, the ethics of animal and human testing and even the future of the the industry itself. It's been a long time since I've enjoyed such excellent questions and hearty debate.

I'm delighted to have another feather in my cap and other experience and set of skills to apply in the future. I figure if I can hold a teenagers attention for an hour using NOTHING but my voice and facial expressions, then there's not much I can't do during a presentation! This experience ranks right up there with some of the aforementioned outreach highlights of my career to date.

I hope the opportunity to do something like this arises again, and I'd like to thank Mr. Thompson and his class for being such excellent guinea pigs (thankfully not for drug testing though, that would not be ethical!).