As animal scientists, our lives and our livelihoods are intimately connected to animals. We study the physiology, nutrition, genetics, management, behavior and health and disease of livestock; companion, laboratory, and exotic animals; and wildlife. In this issue of Animal Frontiers, “The Human–Animal Bond and Domestication: Through the ages…Animals in our lives,” we explore the bond between humans and animals and the domestication of cattle and dogs from their ancient predecessors to their modern counterparts. The study of the human–animal bond or our psychological and social relationship with animals is a true scientific “animal frontier.” One of the more recent animal frontiers to be studied is the nature of the psychological and social relationship we have with the animals that share our world. In the late 1970s, the term “human–animal bond” was coined by Leo Bustad and Michael McCulloch (Hines, 2003). Drs. Bustad and McCulloch were just developing the Delta Society, a society dedicated to understanding the relationship between animals, people, and the environment; hence, the delta. The term “the human–animal bond” was unashamedly borrowed from the respected association found between parents and their offspring, the so-called “parent–infant bond.” The human–animal bond is now being recognized as a scientific discipline; it is a theoretic construct for the behavioral, psychological, physiological, ecological, social, and ethical consequences of the relationship between people and animals that is different from when either partner occurs independently. The new commitment to animals stems not only from our general sensitivity to the welfare of animals, but also from a newer appreciation of the many roles animals play in our lives. But we must remember that to be a “bond,” the effect on each partner has to be mutually beneficial and significant. The association between humans and their animals is indeed mutually beneficial and significant.