FACT: REGIONAL MULTISECTOR CYBERBIOSECURITY WORKSHOP TO SAFEGUARD THE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD BIOECONOMY:COMMUNITY BUILDING, TRAINING, STRATEGY

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: AFRI COMPETITIVE GRANT
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1019771
• Grant No.: 2019-67021-29956
• Cumulative Award Amt.: $49,964.00
• Proposal No.: 2018-09200
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2019
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2021
• Grant Year: 2019
• Program Code: [A1541]- Food and Agriculture Cyberinformatics and Tools

Recipient Organization
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
(N/A)
BLACKSBURG,VA 24061

Performing Department
Food Science and Technology

Non Technical Summary
Cyber-attacks, espionage, and sabotage of biotechnology, agriculture and other life science data sources are powerful methods for undermining the U.S. bioeconomy. The FBI is launching a multi-level, multisector outreach campaign, 'Safeguarding the Bioeconomy', in cooperation with other federal agencies and Congress, to elevate awareness of the need to protect the bioeconomy in various ways (AAAS, 2014; Murch et al., 2018). The bioeconomy, estimated at roughly 25% of U.S. gross domestic product, is defined as 'based on use of research and innovation in biological sciences to create economic activity and public benefit' (NASEM, 2015). The bioeconomy includes clinical and non-clinical (biomedical research; non-biomedical (agriculture, energy, environment) data sources (NASEM, 2016). The need for assessing targets and mediators for protecting the integrity of the food chain was identified in early conversations (NASEM, 2016). In response, we propose the first multi-level, multisector food and agricultural (Fd+Ag) and cybersecurity (Cyber) 'system-of-systems' (Fd+Ag+Cyber) cyberbiosecurity conversation. Cyberbiosecurity is defined as 'developing understanding of vulnerabilities to unwanted surveillance, intrusions, malicious and harmful activities which can occur within or at the interfaces of commingled life science, cyber-physical and infrastructure systems, and developing measures to prevent, protect against, mitigate, investigate and attribute such threats' (Murch et al., 2018).The security of bio-data in the U.S. Fd+Ag system is incomplete and disjointed, exposing our bioeconomy to 'Black Swan' events [e.g. unanticipated events with large, negative impacts] (Aronson, 2011; Murch et al., 2018)). Gaps in security contribute to vulnerabilities and disruptions, with direct and detrimental impact to consumers and opportunities for information warfare to further disrupt the bioeconomy. Typically, large corporate Fd+Ag businesses have the capacity to create cybersecurity (physical) systems; however, the majority of the Fd+Ag system does not have adequate resources (awareness, knowledge, time, finances) to monitor and protect their bio-data in context with the sharing of information within and across multiple sectors of the Fd+Ag system. The United States agricultural sector needs a Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems approach to protect its food supplies. Our long-term goal is to advance cyberbiosecurity communication and protection for the diverse Fd+Ag community, beginning with building trusted partnerships and awareness among the interdisciplinary, multilevel and cross-sector Fd+Ag system and cybersecurity professionals. The overall objectives of this workshop are to: (1) initiate an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems; (2) foster a common cyberbiosecurity "language" that promotes effective communication among all participants and resonates within the Fd+Ag system; and (3) develop training and multilevel, cross-sector cyberbiosecurity planning. These are three fundamental steps toward attainment of our long-term goal. We identified these priorities based on outcomes from the 2018 Virginia Agriculture and Natural Resources (VANR) Summit organized by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station (VAES) and Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE). We know that: (a) Fd+Ag stakeholders desire communication across the sectors and supported by research and extension of the land-grant universities in order to build community; (b) that precision agriculture and technologies for data capture and improved efficiencies and decision making are sought; and (c) there is concern about internet and cloud-based data security.We intend to achieve our overall objective by: (1) establishing a regional Fd+Ag+Cyber community and common communication forum; (2) developing cross-system foundational cyberbiosecurity, cyberphysical and cybersecurity workforce training; (3) identifying common system-of-systems challenges, scenarios and outcomes/risks to various sectors and nodes of the system; and (4) developing cyberbiosecurity regional system strategies and plans, including workforce education/awareness, research, extension, outreach and policy. Our team has research and collaborative strengths in the Fd+Ag systems, cyberbio- and cyberphysical security, infrastructure engineering and security and agricultural economics within Virginia and across the mid-Atlantic and Southeastern region. We also have expertise in conducting systems- and systems-of-systems analyses and counterterrorism. Our partnerships include regional land-grant (1872, 1890) and public universities; Fd+Ag producers, processors, and supplier agri-businesses and industries; cybersecurity experts; state/government agencies (including FBI, USDA) and initiatives (Commonwealth Cyber Initiative (CCI); These relationships position us for delivering a successful and highly attended workshop.To achieve our overall objective, we will plan and deliver a 3-day interactive workshop. This regional workshop is designed to create within-sector and cross-sector discussion in order to establish connections and further characterize commonalities and unique needs. We will seek strategies that support synergistic cyberbiosecurity support for small and moderate-sized companies with limited resources, mirroring the agricultural commodity 'cooperative' concept. Our workshop will include cybersecurity service providers and cyberphysical experts as partners, introduce them to the complex Fd+Ag system and promote them as stakeholders instead of simply 'suppliers' or commentators, creating the basis for the Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems. Companies that provide consulting services, tailored biotechnology products and services, environmental and farm surveillance systems, food and beverage processing and production equipment, and IT-based agribusiness management systems and services will be invited. This multi-systems FACT workshop is innovative because we are establishing common cyberbiosecurity goals and synergistic advantages for an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber enterprise. We will use a participatory model, where all sectors are 'at the table' to help validate the communication language, characterize the needs, identify the priorities, and contribute to the future vision and plan (FAO, 1995). The workshop will be initiated regionally with a goal of expanding to the national scale.From this workshop, we will (1) create and disseminate (publish) a common lexicon that creates awareness, understanding, and shared community across the Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems; (2) develop and evaluate cyberbiosecurity training materials (case studies) applicable to the Fd+Ag system (within sectors; across system) to illustrate unique needs and common challenges; these will be published and shared so academic education and Cooperative Extension programming may contribute to developing the Fd+Ag+Cyber workforce; (3) dissect challenges and diagnose barriers to increase Fd+Ag+Cyber synergistic cooperation and reduce the (knowledge, time, financial, technology) resources needed for small and moderate-sized Fd+Ag businesses to protect their data and that of the larger Fd+Ag system. We expect these outcomes to have a significant positive effect on the adoption of cyberbiosecurity strategies within the Fd+Ag system. These innovations will increase efficiencies, agility, and security of the U.S. bioeconomy and sustain and increase its national benefit and economic value.

Animal Health Component

50%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

20%

Applied

50%

Developmental

30%

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
903	5299	3030	100%

Knowledge Area
903 - Communication, Education, and Information Delivery;

Subject Of Investigation
5299 - Agricultural supplies, general/other;

Field Of Science
3030 - Information and communication;

Keywords

fact

agriculture

bioeconomy

cyberbiosecurity

food

Goals / Objectives
Our long-term goal is to advance cyberbiosecurity communication and protection for the diverse Fd+Ag community beginning with building trusted partnerships and awareness among the interdisciplinary, multilevel and cross-sector Fd+Ag system and cybersecurity professionals. The overall objectives of this workshop are to: (1) initiate an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems; (2) foster a common cyberbiosecurity "language" that promotes effective communication among all participants and resonates within the Fd+Ag system; and (3) develop training and multilevel, cross-sector cyberbiosecurity planning. These are three fundamental steps toward attainment of our long-term goal.

Project Methods
Objective 1. Initiate an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems network. Our approach is to:use an electronic survey to assess stakeholders' baseline perception of awareness and concern about cyber-risks to Fd+Ag sectors and system and the effects to the bioeconomy.bring the diverse stakeholder group (target of 150 participants) together in the Workshop for developing their awareness of and the importance of the integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber community for protecting bio-data and the bioeconomy.The rationale for this objective is to bring representatives of diverse sectors together into shared conversation and perspectives on which to build the Fd+Ag+Cyber community. Our marketing and recruitment strategies will target stakeholders within the mid-Atlantic region. This reaches a high representation of sector stakeholders (Table 2) with easy access to the Washington DC region. At the conclusion of the project, we anticipate success at identifying shared perspectives of the importance of cyberbiosecurity to each sector of the Fd+Ag+Cyber system.Approaches/Strategies for this Objective. To meet our objective, we will:Identify stakeholders within each sector, and expand the list through contacts and networking, to achieve at least 1200 potential Fd+Ag+Cyber community members. Table 2 illustrates the targeted sectors, stakeholder roles, and potential cyberbiosecurity risks to which our Fd+Ag system is susceptible. We will identify Fd+Ag stakeholders in Virginia through the invitation list for the VANR, our VAES and Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) stakeholders, and networking with regional state experiment stations Directors and Cooperative Extension leaders within the mid-Atlantic region (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina). To reach our cybersecurity stakeholders, we will identify contacts through the VT Hume Center, VT Integrated Security Destination Area Committee, Commonwealth CyberInitiative, federal agencies (FBI, USDA NIFA FACT) leaders, and reach out to coordinators of similar meetings (see Table 3) to ask for regional stakeholders. We will expand our efforts, if needed, to additional states in the Southeast to achieve our target list.Stakeholders will receive an invitation to complete a short electronic survey, using Qualtrics survey software (www.qualtrics.com) along with the invitation to the workshop. The survey will include demographic questions and inquire about perceived susceptibility to cyber-terrorism for Fd+Ag data, perceived severity of risk, perceived benefits of security technology within their sector and across sectors in the Fd+Ag system, and perceived barriers to implementing security technology. Survey questions will be guided by outcomes from the Geil et al. (2018) study and the goals of our project. Participants will be contacted at least three times to ask for survey participation and encourage registration for the workshop.Survey results will be used to refine our Workshop promotion, agenda, and planning for the Workshop. We will incorporate this data into post-Workshop products as appropriate.Objective 2. Foster a common cyberbiosecurity "language" that promotes effective communication among all participants and resonates within the Fd+Ag system. We will use a standardized ASTM approach, with modifications appropriate for this new paradigm.Complete a comprehensive review of literature to establish a 'frame of reference' and generate an initial list of terminology that may be encountered in Fd+Ag+Cyber community conversations, with emphasis relating to cyberbiosecurity concepts. This will be completed prior to the workshop;Expand terms through discussion among stakeholders prior to and during the workshop;Clarify and define the terms during a session in the workshop;Explore the relevance and appropriateness of the terms and definitions during subsequent discussions on workforce training and case scenarios, establishing if term utilization and comprehension is occurring among sectors and stakeholders.Refine based on workshop feedback and assessments.Objective 3. Develop training and multilevel, cross-sector cyberbiosecurity planning. We will use case studies/scenarios of relevance to cross-sector Fd+Ag+Cyber as boundary objects. Our approach is to:Engage multi-sector stakeholders in evaluating a defined cyberbiosecurity (cyberthreat) scenario in Fd+Ag.Explore technical skills and knowledge needed for developing proficiency in cyberbiosecurity for the Fd+Ag system.Conceptualize synergistic approaches and innovative strategies for filling the gaps in training and communication in the Fd+Ag+Cyber community.To meet our objective, we will have a session within the workshop for roundtable discussions. During this session, multi-sector stakeholder groups will evaluate unique case studies. Stakeholders will:individually (1) identify perceived threat, (2) identify perceived severity of risk to their sector and relative severity of risk to other Fd+Ag sectors, (3) characterize the benefit of cyberbiosecurity technology in mitigating the threat, (4) identify barriers to implementation of cyberbiosecurity technology, and (5) conceptualize avenues for overcoming barriers.Engage in group discussion about perceptions of individual stakeholders in relation to the Fd+Ag system and the bioeconomy.Explore the sense of community developing in terms of protecting the larger system-of-systems, the communication and technical challenges that appeared during the discussion, and the solutions that were explored to overcome the barriers.Characterize the skills and knowledge needed to address the barriers and implement solutions and suggest training needs that can be incorporated into the education and workforce training.Identify where they, as stakeholders, would seek that knowledge and training and suggest options for how to communicate to the broader Fd+Ag+Cyber community.A website will be created to advertise the workshop and host the information for registration, agenda, lodging, and other pertinent details.

Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/21

Outputs
Target Audience:Our primary audiences included faculty, graduate and undergraduate students as we evaluated the workshop information and created new strategies. We reached a broad audience of policy, federal security, computer science, engineering, cybersecurity, food and agricultural industries and professionals, and academics through the workshop as well as through publications, presentations, websites, media interviews, podcasts and other approaches. Changes/Problems:The original plan was to have an in-person workshop but we pivoted to a virtual format due to the COVID pandemic. This may have affected the conversations and shared responses byparticipants and engagement with speakers. The outcomes, while rich and informative, may not be as expansive as we might have obtained through an in-person design. I also noted that one of the co-PIs listed on the project is incorrect. Dr. Martha Walker retired before the project was initiated and we added Dr. Megan Seibel as co-PI to complete the key responsibilities that were originally planned for Dr. Walker. Dr. Seibel did an excellent job and I want to note that she has been a key team member throughout the project. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate and undergraduate students have compiled literature of relevance to cyberbiosecurity, learned research techniques for evaluating qualitative information and how to prepare manuscripts, discussed complex topics associated with cyberbiosecurity, agriculture and food systems with faculty and external stakeholders, contributed to development of cyberbiosecurity scenarios for discussion forums and educational purposes. Several of the students are co-authors on peer-reviewed publications resulting from this effort. Participants in the workshop developed greater understanding of cyberbiosecurity and their role in securing the agriculture and food system. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The workshop information and more general information on cyberbiosecurity has been disseminated through a variety of resources including peer-reviewed scientific publications, Extension publications, videos and podcast interviewsavailable through the internet, invited presentations and panel panel participation to state and federal regulatory and policy groups, and popular press articles that include interviews with one or more of the faculty involved in this project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? What is the Issue?The security of bio-data in the U.S. food and agriculturalsystem is incomplete and disjointed, exposing our bioeconomy to 'Black Swan' events [e.g. unanticipated events with large, negative impacts].There is a critical need to secure the food supply chain. Our long-term goal is to advance cyberbiosecurity communication and protection for the diverse food and agricultural community beginning with building trusted partnerships and awareness among the interdisciplinary, multilevel and cross-sector system, cybersecurity professionals, regulatory and policy agencies, and academia. Objectives of this workshop were to: (1) initiate an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems; (2) foster a common cyberbiosecurity "language" that promotes effective communication among all participants and resonates within the Fd+Ag system; and (3) develop training and multilevel, cross-sector cyberbiosecurity planning. Partners:The keynote speaker had leadership on the National Academies of Sciences Safeguarding the BioEconomy report and over 30 years of experience in biotechnology and agribusiness. Presenters and panelists had extensive expertise in national security and biodefense, food safety and biosecurity, cybersecurity, and innovation. What was done: Theworkshop was delivered virtually on October 6-7, 2020, with 170 registrations including 20 students. All sessions were recorded ornotes takenin real time. Discussion sessions were led by trained facilitators. Participants heard from a variety of leaders in the federal and state government and agribusinesses about the importance of protecting the domestic food supply chain from cyberattack, the potential risks and modes of action that constitute cyberattacks, threats and concerns of industry leaders. Participants contributed to discussions through role playing using cybersecurity scenarios relevant to agriculture and food, identified roles and responsibilities for elevating awareness and designing and incorporating strategies for protection, and shared messages they heard from speakers and panel members, and next steps.The workshop recordings and notes were evaluated for common themes, which were verified and summarized. Supporting documents were reviewed and summarized. Post-workshop activities were based on outcomes from the discussions. Audience, Participant Information and location:The workshop drew a national/international audience from at least 15 states, Washington DC, and the UK. Participants represented academic administrators, faculty, and students from 12 universities, federal and state representation from the White House, US Representatives, 3 federal agencies, several national laboratories, agriculture and forestry commodity boards and regulatory representation, and state level higher education representatives as well as industryrepresentation from agriculture, food, energy, technology companies, military representation, and consultants attended. Participants represented animal science, basic science, biosecurity, biotechnology, business, computer science, cybersecurity, economics, engineering, food science, health nutrition and medicine, information science, plant science, production agriculture, and other. Results: Objective 1. Initiate an integrated Fd+Ag+Cyber system-of-systems. Themes emerging from the workshop included challenges, solutions, viewpoints, and vocabulary. Over 213 challenges were coded from sessiontranscripts. A principal challenge is the lack of infrastructure and expertise. Anotherwas the ability to protect against the variety of threats. Different sectors of the food system and affiliated industries had varying viewpoints about challenges. A commonly expressed view was the sense that employees did not think that this fell within their responsibility. Some participants acknowledged that their businesses were not proactive/were behind in deveopingprotection plans. Concern was expressed about the logistics of bringing cyberbiosecurity strategies to the private sector. Participants identified that solutions must fit the individual business needs and priorities.Training and education were identified as an important step. Involving the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee was identified as a need. Viewpoints suggested that there are commonalities of challenges and solution approaches with other fields such as biotechnology, biomedical, biomanufacturing, and chemical production, all of which contribute to the bioeconomy. Policy and government guidance should consider the multiple sectors involved and the complexity of the food supply chain. A manuscript was generated basedon the participant discussions and was published as an open-access article in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. ? Objective 2. Foster a common cyberbiosecurity "language" that promotes effective communication among all participants and resonates within the food and agricultural system. Vocabulary challenged the conversation. Common terms to the security participants were not familiar to many of the participants representing agriculture and food industries and academics and vice versa. A list of 14 terms were generated and explanations provided by the participants to create a working lexicon. This is not an exhaustive list but serves as a beginning. Using a university research group from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, we also investigated vocabulary and accountability issues within the academic agriculture and life sciences community. From this effort, we identified that academic life scientists are not aware of or prepared to educate life science students in their role in securing the digital data generated in agriculture and life sciences. Objective 3. Develop training and multilevel, cross-sector cyberbiosecurity planning. A final recommendation from the discussion was to form synergistic collaborations among industry, government, law enforcement and higher education to provide diverse viewpoints, develop suggested strategies for addressing cyberattacks, and to build a baseline infrastructure for training future employees in business, government, and law enforcement. Engagement with many of the participants or representation of the companies and organizations continued after the workshop, leading to additional networking, invited speaking opportunities on the topic of cyberbiosecurity to a variety of audiences including biodefense and an international audience (US,, Mexico, Canada) of agricultural regulatory leaders, and strategies for building the cyberbiosecurity workforce pipeline througheducation. Cyberbiosecurity was incorporated as a research platform within the new Virginia Tech Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture (established October 2020; Duncan as Director) to continue pursuing these strategies and contribute to the development of this emerging paradigm. A recent publication in Food Technology presented the case that food scientists and engineers need to have a baseline level of comprehension and accountability of cyberbiosecurity. USDA NIFA and Virginia Commonwealth CyberInitiative grants were obtained to begin building the educational and workforce pipeline, starting from middle school. Who Cares and Why:Recent food supply shortages and awareness of ransomware attacks on agriculture and food companies has escalated public concern about the security of the U.S. food supply. Major corporate food processing companies have been impacted by small and moderate-sized companies impaired by ransomware and other cyberattacks, increasing their concern that productivity will be affected and products will not reach consumers. Corporate food and agricultural companies have recognized that providing protection requires a that life science graduates need to be trained in cyberbiosecurity in order to be prepared for managing digital data and industrial control systems.?

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Duncan SE; Zhang B; Thomason W; Ellis M; Meng N; Stamper M; Carneiro RCV1; Drape T. (2020). Securing data in life sciences  a plant food (edamame) systems case study. Frontiers in Sustainability. Multi-criteria Decisions Making. Research Topic: Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making: Stakeholders Opinions and Scenario Analysis. Published online open access on December 14, 2020. doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2020.60039
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Drape T, Magerkorth N, Sen A, Simpson J, Seibel M, Murch M, Duncan S. (2021) Assessing the Role of Cyberbiosecurity in Agriculture: A case Study. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9:737927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.737927
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Duncan S; Carneiro R; Braley J; Hersh M; Ramsey F; Murch R. (2021). Beyond ransomware: Securing the Digital Food Chain. Food Technology. October, 75(9). https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2021/october/features/digital-food-chain.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Mack, R., and Miller, R. 2020. Cyberbiosecurity  A compilation of summaries of peer-reviewed publications, government publications, and relevant resources. Securing Agriculture, Food, and its Economy (SAFE) with Cyberbiosecurity resource. Last updated: November 2020. Available at https://www.cpe.vt.edu/cyberbiosecurity/faq.html.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Carneiro R., Duncan S, Ramsey F, Seyyedhasani H, Murch R. 2021. Cyber attacks in agriculture: protecting your farm and small business with cyberbiosecurity. Virginia Cooperative Extension. FST-387NP
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Drape, Tiffany; Magerkorth, Noah; Sen, Anuradha; Simpson, Joseph; Seibel, Megan; Murch, Randall Steven; et al. (2021): DataSheet1_Assessing the Role of Cyberbiosecurity in Agriculture: A Case Study.DOCX. Frontiers. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.737927.s001
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2021 Citation: Jaylen Day, (2021). Creating Introductory materials in cyberbiosecurity for educators. Dennis Dean Undergraduate Research Conference, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Securing Agriculture, Food, and its Economy (SAFE) with Cyberbiosecurity. https://www.cpe.vt.edu/cyberbiosecurity/index.html
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Virginia Tech Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture, Cyberbiosecurity and BioSecurity research platform page. https://caia.cals.vt.edu/cyberbiosecurity.html

Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Our primary audiences during this reporting period were faculty, graduate and undergraduate students as we developed the programming and background material. In addition, we reached a broad audience of policy, federal security, computer science, engineering, cybersecurity, food and agricultural industries and professionals, and academics through a scientific publication. Changes/Problems:The workshop was originally scheduled for an in-person workshop for early March and then again for June, 2020 but, due to the coronavirus pandemic, it was postponed each time. We have now scheduled a virtual workshop for October 6-7, 2020. Because of the pandemic influence and a delay in receiving the funding from USDA NIFA (not received until late January 2020 even though the award was approved in September 2019), we requested a no-cost extension of the project through February 2021. We have had some changes in co-PI status of the project. Dr. Ed Colbert has left Virginia Tech and is not able to continue with the project leadership. Dr. Martha Walker has retired from Virginia Tech and is not able to continue with the project. We have added Dr. Joseph Simpson and Dr. Megan Seibel to address the responsibilities described for the original 2 co-PIs. Because we have changed the meeting format to virtual, some of the anticipated workshop expenses of travel and meals will not be used as originally planned. We will be requesting a change in the budget to support the funding of students to assist with transcribing the workshop recordings, organizing the data, and drafting of the manuscript as well as publication fees for open-access publication. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have trained 3 undergraduates and involved 3 graduate students in efforts supporting cyberbiosecurity in agriculture and life sciences in support of this workshop. The undergraduate students were highly involved in searching the literature on cyberbiosecurity related to agriculture and food sectors and created a data set of publications. The undergraduate students also transcribed a focus group discussion relating agriculture and food systems project, data sharing, and cyberbiosecurity concepts. Dr. Tiffany Drape provided bi-weekly sessions with students to discuss their progress, learn about focus group evaluation, and prepare oral and poster presentations for talking to academic audiences. Dr. Susan Duncan assisted as a secondary mentor specifically on the topics of food, agriculture and cyberbiosecurity. One graduate student, mentored directly by Dr. Megan Seibel and assisted by Drs. Duncan and Drape, has created summaries of cyberbiosecurity publications for lay audiences. Another graduate student, mentored by Dr. Duncan has drafted a manuscript from the transcribed focus group. A third graduate student is involved in developing educational materials for faculty in the area of cyberbiosecurity. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The workshop website is publically available and will be shared widely through LinkedIn and ResearchGate, direct email invitations to the workshop, promotion through Commonwealth Cyber Initiative and other sources, with registration promotions during August and September in anticipation of the October meeting. The publication is open access and is available through searching and promoted through the Frontiers journal. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will promote the workshop meeting through early October 2020 and conduct the meeting on October 6-7. From the information we gather at the meeting, we will develop a manuscript for publication and will disseminate the findings broadly through national presentations. We will follow up with participants by sharing the published manuscript and information about the next steps from the outcomes of the meeting.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? With funding from USDA NIFA, Virginia Tech researchers have designed a virtual workshop for all members of the food and agricultural system, national security and policy, and cyber industries. The workshop, entitled Securing Agriculture, Food, and its Economy (SAFE) with Cyberbiosecurity, is scheduled for October 6-7. In preparation for this workshop, we have invited national and state leaders as speakers and panelists to address a variety of topics and engage the workshop participants in discussion. The workshop agenda is located at https://www.cpe.vt.edu/cyberbiosecurity/index.html. In preparation for the workshop, we have written an overview publication entitled Cyberbiosecurity: A New Perspective on Protecting U.S. Food and Agricultural System (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00063/full) and discussed cyberbiosecurity with various audiences and stakeholders. We have compiled evidence of challenges and issues relating to cyberbiosecurity in the food and agricultural sectors as introductory case study scenarios. We have created a general summary of current publications on cyberbiosecurity and posted that to our workshop webpage (https://www.cpe.vt.edu/cyberbiosecurity/faq.html). The open-access publication is highly viewed, receiving over 5600 views and ranked at one of the highest (78%) of views for all of the Frontiers publications, with over 550 downloads. This publication is being seen around the globe as the special research topic on 'Mapping the Cyberbiosecurity Enterprise' , including the ebook, has nearly 60,000 views, with primary readership in US and Germany. We will use this as a publicity point for attracting participation in the workshop in order to create this integrated food and agriculture cyberbiosecurity discussion.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Duncan SE, Reinhard R, Williams RC, Ramsey F, Thomason W, Lee K, Dudek N, Mostaghimi S, Colbert E, and Murch R. 2019. Cyberbiosecurity: A new perspective on protecting U.S. food and agricultural system. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00063.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Duncan SE, Ramsey F. 2019. Virginia Tech SmartFarm Innovation Network: The Cyber Connection. Commonwealth Cyber Initiative (CCI) Research Workshop, Arlington, VA. October 11, 2019. Poster presentation, approximately 110 participants.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: McMillian Z, Magerkorth N, Drape T. 2020. Cyberbiosecurity: case studies and data analysis. Cyberbiosecurity and the SmartFarm Innovation Network meeting. Blacksburg, VA. January 31, 2020. Oral presentation. approximately 30 participants.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Duncan SE, Ramsey F, Murch R. 2020. Positioning our leadership momentum in cyberbiosecurity and SmartFarm Innovation Network: Creating visibility, cyberbiosecurity as a rising VT initiative, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology Special Issue: Mapping the Cyberbiosecurity Enterprise, National Workshop: Securing Agriculture, Food, and its Economy (SAFE) with Cyberbiosecurity. Cyberbiosecurity and the SmartFarm Innovation Network meeting. Blacksburg, VA. January 31, 2020. Oral presentation. approximately 30 participants.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: McMillian Z, Magerkorth N, Drape T. 2020. Cyberbiosecurity and the agriculture industry: Preventing attacks on our food supply. Virginia Tech Undergraduate Research Symposium. Blacksburg, VA. April 24,2020.