Today parliamentarians are wrestling with the definition of humanity as they vote on whether to allow mitochondrial donation, or as we like to say in the non-scientific world, three-parent babies. If the law is changed, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will consider individual cases and grant licences. The Church of England wants more time to think about it (its classic position) while the Catholic Church remains opposed in principle.

The usual argument made against science is that it lacks imagination. The expressive actress Olivia Vinall in The Hard Problem argues with her rationalist lover about sciences failure to explain, for instance, maternal love. But in the case of mitochondrial donation, it is the Church that needs to make the leap of faith. No science is without risk, and advances can be abused. Improving the human condition is a scientific wonder but look what Hitler did for eugenics.

It is up to society to adjudicate, guided by experts. It would be hopeless for parliamentarians to debate every case we must trust the doctors and lawyers. There will be quacks and conmen just as there are a very few shady figures working in IVF. Occasionally a scandal comes to light of complicity between bonkers parents and doctors in selecting only boys, or trying to create Danish superheroes. But science fiction is a tiny part of reality. For most of us, IVF is a kindly process which rights a cruel biological quirk. Over a generation it has become familiar and thus normal. You would have to be unbendingly doctrinal still to condemn it.

The same pattern will occur with mitochondial donation. If you talk of three-parent babies it sounds freakish. But when you see a young mother, such as Vicky Holliday, with a grievously sick child, who just wants to spare a second baby the affliction of Leigh syndrome, the only proper response is pity.

Professor Doug Turnbull, who is championing mitochondrial donation, was not convinced by scientific zeal but by compassion for parents with cursed genes. Which parent would not wish to alleviate suffering in a child if it were scientifically possible?

Surely compassion is the means to reconcile science and religion on this matter. Last year the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, sensationally withdrew his opposition to assisted dying because he said it would be wrong of the Church to promote anguish and pain. The same argument can be made for supporting todays vote in the House of Commons. Scientists are not playing God but showing compassion. The Church must do the same.

The head of Barclays, Anthony Jenkins, fears the digital generation has lost the skills of human interaction. He backs a Matthew Arnoldesque scheme to teach firm handshakes and honest eye contact.

There is a harder skill we must relearn, which is why Helen Macdonalds Costa Prize-winning book H is for Hawk should be on the school curriculum. Her search for the goshawk is a lesson in patience. She was taught by her father, a newspaper photographer who did much of his work for the Evening Standard.

Capturing a rare moment can mean long periods of stillness and boredom. When the goshawk comes, it is all worth it.

At a dinner for business leaders recently, the gathering ruefully discussed the public distrust of CEOs. Partly, they attributed it as tactfully as they could to a lack of public understanding, particularly of technological progress. The examples cited were fracking and genetically modified food. One popular business leader at the table pointed out that bosses had sometimes behaved badly. The financial crisis is a fine example.

Continued here:

Sarah Sands: This baby should unite scientists and the Church