This book was # rst sketched on a napkin in a Manhattan hotel bar during an annual meeting of the AALS (Association of American Law Schools). In the years that have elapsed since our # rst discussion of the issues in this book, much has happened. Interest in law and neuroscience has exploded and, with it, the attention of scholars from a variety of disciplines. We have been willing and eager participants in these debates. Although sometimes taken to be “skeptics” about the prospects of neuroscience for law, we think this label is inaccurate. In this book we make our case in a sustained fashion, covering a variety of topics and, as always, maintaining our stance that the conceptual issues involved are an important dimension of the intersection between law and neuroscience. Our work on this topic began as an article in the University of Illinois Law Review . 5 In that article, we took a broad view of the issues in law and neuroscience, identifying questions we knew we wanted to research further. The publication of that article garnered attention for our positions on the issues, and we were invited to discuss our views in a variety of fora. We thank Neil Levy and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong for convening a special symposium issue of the journal Neuroethics discussing our work, and we thank the other contributors in that issue (Walter Glannon, Sarah Robins, Carl Craver, and Thomas Nadelho$ er) for their insightful commentary.