Comparative analysis of 162 (nearly) complete genomes of Asgard archaea, including 75 not reported previously, substantially expands the phylogenetic and metabolic diversity of the superphylum Asgard, with six additional phyla proposed. Phylogenetic analysis of universally conserved genes does not strongly support the origin of eukaryotes from within Asgard but rather, leans towards a three-domain topology, with eukaryotes branching outside archaea. Using sensitive methods for protein domains detection on the extended set of Asgard genomes results in a major expansion of the set of homologs of eukaryote signature proteins (ESPs). However, almost all Asgard ESPs show patchy phyletic distributions, large variations in the number of paralogs and variable domain architectures, suggestive of highly dynamic evolution via horizontal gene transfer (HGT), gene loss, gene duplication and domain shuffling. The results appear to be best compatible with an evolutionary scenario in which the conserved core of eukaryote genes involved in informational processes originates from an as yet unknown ancestral lineage deep within or outside the currently characterized archaeal diversity. Such hypothetical ancestors could have accumulated components of the mobile archaeal 'eukaryome' via extensive HGT, eventually, giving rise to eukaryote-like cells. Our reconstruction of the metabolic networks for the extant and ancestral Asgard archaea reveals three distinct lifestyles, anaerobic heterotrophy, facultative aerobic heterotrophy, and chemolithotrophy, and suggests that the common ancestor of Asgard archaea was an acetogenic myxotroph capable of both production and consumption of hydrogen. These findings could be best compatible with different versions of the syntrophic hypothesis for eukaryogenesis, depending on the exact relationship between Asgard and eukaryotes.

The problem of social inequality is a relevant subject of research, since in many ways all kinds of protest movements arise in the society when its different segments and groups feel and experience social injustice. The individual’s disadvantaged position in the society at present and his/her willingness to change it against the inability to do it is an important indicator of social instability. However, people’s perception of social injustice and inequality is different. The purpose of the present study is to explore the causes of economic inequality in Russia, as viewed by the population, as well as the attitudes to fairness of economic inequality and subjective assessment of one’s own chances of material success. The paper identifies the factors that influence subjective assessment of a person’s own chances. In the opinion of the population, it is non-meritocratic forms that are predominant in the Russian society. It was found that dissatisfaction with inequality is lower among the people who are poor today but contemplate to become rich in the future than among those who apprehend of becoming poor both now and in the future. It is shown that the individual’s subjective rank in income distribution is more important for one’s subjective well-being than the relative wage level.

The article addresses the attitudes to inequality in the Russian society depending on the role of the individual in a reference group. It is shown that people are ready to accept significant income inequality if they believe that the income is well earned. No correlation was found between subjective well-being and inequality. The vast majority of people compare themselves with friends, neighbours and relatives. The next most important reference group is colleagues, followed by celebrities. The rejection of representatives of lower social classes is negatively correlated with life satisfaction. At the same time, the respondents expressed willingness to build a society where, having due means, people would organise help to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Авторы продолжают обсуждение вопроса о некорректных трактовках метода фокус-групп, поднятого ими в статье «Что не так с фокус-группами», опубликованной в журнале ЭКО № 6 за 2021 г. Метод фокус-групп трактуется ими как групповое глубокое интервью, основанное на технике зондирования (probing). Обсуждается искаженное использование концептов групповой динамики, поляризующей дискуссии, инсайта, проективных методов, анализа невербальных реакций респондентов и др. Поднят вопрос о низком качестве отчетов, основанных на фокус-групповых исследованиях. Отмечается непрозрачность методик проведения фокус-групп и анализа их результатов. Делается вывод о необходимости ясного формулирования методических принципов фокус-групповых исследований и корректировки вузовских программ обучения.   От редакции. Данный текст редакция публикует, невзирая на отрицательные заключения рецензентов, из уважения к опыту авторов. История знает случаи, когда рецензенты заблуждались в отношении научных статей, поэтому редакцией принято решение опубликовать ее, но обращаем внимание читателей, что материал не случайно поставлен в рубрику «Точка зрения». Мы полагаем важным в рамках академических свобод давать слово разным исследователям даже в ситуациях, когда мнение автора не совпадает с мнением редакции. Надеемся, что данная публикация станет позитивным примером такого подхода, а не ошибкой.