Editorials

“What are the main challenges for geochemistry in the future?” was a question asked of Al Hofmann, the recent Urey medalist of the European Association of Geochemistry (Elements, February 2016, p 68). “The ability to analyze most or all atoms in a very small sample by micro-analytical methods,” was his answer. As an Earth surface geochemist interested in large-scale fluxes, my spontaneous response was surprise. Isn’t the grandest of all challenges rather to use large spatial scale geochemical signals to reveal processes and fluxes of global significance? Then I contemplated the vast amount of information that has been harvested from the smallest samples. And I began to question whether the “small is beautiful” or “bigger the better” avenues are actually opposing approaches. The editing of my first issue as an Elements principal editor, this cosmic dust volume, contributed enormously to a swing of my opinion.

It is the time of year when many learned soci-eties are seeking nominations for medals and other awards which confer honour on those col- leagues of exceptional achievement. Having been a member of several awards committees, it has become apparent to me that few of us take the trouble to nominate even the most deserving of colleagues for awards. In fact, awards committees are usually so short of nominations that the Chair has to cajole and browbeat friends and colleagues into submitting nominations for scientists who are clearly of the right level of distinction.

My first exposure to cultural heritage occurred in 1974 when I was asked by a group of physicists from the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International based in California, USA) to serve as a mineralogical consultant for their project on the pyramids of Giza (Egypt). Their objective was to perform radio frequency (rf) sounder experiments in search of archaeologically signifi cant hidden chambers.