This article analyzes problems and implications for man and nature connected with the formation of a new architecture of science, based on the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (NBIC). It also describes evolution and genesis of bioethics, a scientific discipline and social practice with a special role of ethical management of potential risks of scientific research. The aim was to demonstrate the necessity of bioethical social control in the development of a global bioeconomy driven by NBIC technologies.

Today developed countries are not just talking about agriculture or agribusiness, but set a strategic goal in developing high-tech and profitable sector of the Bioeconomy as a serious alternative to traditional industries, economies and markets. Modern agriculture and worldwide growth structural change of consumption of food. This factor is directly linked with the global orientation of rural households in the world at improving the productivity of agricultural land, reduction of losses, and increase in food production. The agricultural sector focuses on the production and processing of agricultural products, storage, transportation and sales of finished products. Thus, the agricultural sector requires professionals with expertise and skills relevant to the entire production cycle. The transition to the Bioeconomy market changed the nature and conditions of agricultural workers. The article provides a rationale for the necessity of establishment of an agro-bio-techno park in the Republic of Tatarstan as an innovative factor of increasing competitiveness of agriculture in Russia under global challenges. It represents results of analysis of global challenges for development of agriculture, domestic and international experience of setting up and work of techno parks in the universities and the model of the Agro-bio-techno park establishment at the Kazan State Agrarian University.

The recent pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus strain (COVID-19) has suddenly and radically shattered all ideas about the norm, not only in medical practice but also in society. This has particularly affected the healthcare system, physicians, and the distribution of life-sustaining therapy in the context of limited resources and the absence of a known treatment protocol. One of the main ethical dilemmas of the coronavirus epidemic has been the confrontation between public health ethics, reflected in the fair distribution of limited resources and a focus on public safety, and patient-centred clinical ethics. Ultimately, the COVID-19 pandemic is putting medical staff in tragic situations that they have never faced. And in the case of a shortage of medical staff doctors and nurses, ventilators and other life-supporting devices for patients or even just beds in hospitals, it frequently becomes necessary to classify patients and decide an order to determine who, where and what kind of help will receive (or not receive) and in what queue to provide it. Another important problem was the problem of digital control of citizens, who must limit their freedoms for preserving the health of other citizens. The fear is widely shared that the situation will allow manipulation citizens in the future when there is no epidemiological need. Also, the problem of the responsibi-lity of politicians and authorized organizations for the health not only its people but all over the world arises. These and other questions today require bioethical expertise.

Modern changes in agricultural market raise the issue of staffing quality. However, there is a real gap between the needs of specific agricultural producers and those workers who come to this sphere after graduating from agricultural universities. There is a number of ways and forms to decrease this gap. One of these tools is an independent external assessment of the quality of learning outcomes in the form of professional and public accreditation, conducted by employers. At the same time, it has not yet become an effective instrument in Russian, but there are some legislative grounds for it. The paper presents the analysis of successful international experience of professional and public assessment of agricultural educational programs, including the universities of North America. In the context of the globalization of agriculture, the implementation of new technologies and food security provision, the introduction of the best practices of public and professional accreditation into the Russian system of training professional agrarian personnel is of particular importance.

The main purpose of this study is to determine the best practices of social regulation of negative consequences for modern biotechnology use based on a comparative review of European and Russian legal regulations on food safety. The paper gives original classification of risks of biotechnologies introduction in agriculture, namely: food, agricultural, environmental, patent, social and ethical ones. Although risk assessment systems have been in use for some time, consumers do not always trust the results. One explanation for this is that in the past many national food safety systems had problems with timely notification of certain products' potential hazards. In many countries, social and ethical views can be the reason for rejection of certain products, manipulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Such conflicts often reflect deeper issues about the interaction of human society and natureissues that must be fully taken into account in any attempt at social communication. Authors offer a mode of social control and consensus in the form of agrobioethics, similar to bioethics in biomedical technologies.