It’s one thing to suggest that children of mixed-race are treated differently from other children. But what if that different treatment comes not from peers, teachers or neighbours, but from their parents?

This is the provocative finding of a study published in the American Journal of Sociology. It found that parents of mixed-race children lavish more time and money on their offspring than parents of same-race children. Mixed-race children are more likely to enjoy private schooling, a home computer and cultural days out (to zoos, museums and art galleries), and to participate in extracurricular activities such as music and ballet. Brian Powell, of Indiana University in Bloomington, suggests that parents are compensating their children for the social disadvantages that they may face. It was not until 1967 that a US Supreme Court ruling decriminalised mixed-race marriages, suggesting that such unions are a bigger deal there than they are in Britain.

Professor Powell specialises in studying “parental expenditure” in untypical families. These include families with adopted children, older parents and “biracial” parents (comprising blacks, whites, Latinos and Native Americans). In all cases the children are predicted to be disadvantaged; in all cases, refreshingly, research has found that these children are exceptionally fortunate.

Common sense suggests that it often takes a deep well of love and courage to engineer an “untypical” domestic set-up. How lucky are the children born into such committed unions.

If ever there were a scientific issue likely to produce confusion, it is plans for a public consultation on the creation of human-animal embryos. The Government suggested banning such embryos but changed its mind after protests from scientists. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority then declared that it, not the Government, possessed the power to authorise such research.

The HFEA has yet to decide, however, whether it will sanction that research and is delaying a policy decision until September, after it has carried out a public consultation.

Shirley Harrison, the HFEA chairman, appeared on the Today programme last week to explain. If the public came back with a resounding “no”, John Humphrys asked, would the HFEA refuse to license the controversial research? Ms Harrison countered that the consultation did not amount to a referendum; the HFEA would not be totting up votes for and against.

There would, she added, be an opinion poll to prevent the consultation being monopolised by special interest groups; this column advocated such a poll back in January. Despite this assurance, my heart sank as I marmaladed my toast. There is only one thing guaranteed to irk the public more than a refusal to consult them – and that’s consulting them while telling them that their opinions don’t matter.

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden