Are sperm counts really dropping worldwide?

by BBC
The shock conclusion of a study 20 years ago indicated that sperm counts had halved. But a closer look at the evidence then and now paints a much more complex story.

Ask someone what they know about men’s sperm counts, and the chances are you will hear that they are dropping. People will probably have plenty of theories as to why this is happening – perhaps because of herbicides, pesticides, or oestrogens in the water from so many women being on the pill. Or there are theories based on lifestyle – for instance, men are taking less exercise, eating more fast food and getting fatter. Some even suggest that wearing tight pants can cause problems.

But is it really true that sperm counts are in free-fall globally? To understand why this perception is so common, we have to go back to a paper published 20 years ago.

Elisabeth Carlsen and her colleagues reviewed 61 studies of semen quality carried out between 1938 and 1990, and their conclusions published in the British Medical Journal in 1992 were shocking. In 50 years sperm counts had halved. The authors were open in saying that the data did not indicate whether or not the decline was continuing. But the mass of publicity their findings received left many with the idea that it had been proven beyond doubt – sperm counts are not only falling everywhere, but will continue to do so.

Under scrutiny

However, there are a number of issues with drawing conclusions about trends from these 61 original studies, and these are worth going through in some detail. Starting with the participants, studies of the sperm count of the average man are supposed to preclude men with fertility problems. But getting volunteers to provide semen samples is not easy, so some subjects might enrol in studies because they are concerned about their sperm count, yet fail to divulge this to the researchers. Different studies use different methods of ensuring that fertility is proven, but if some volunteers suspect they might have low sperm counts this could skew the sample, if you’ll forgive the pun.

There are also other factors that vary from study to study, such as the length of time there has been between the provision of the tested sample and the previous ejaculation. Also, methods of analysing semen samples have changed between 1938 and 1990. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends using laboratory techniques that do not rely on an individual making a judgement, but this wasn’t the case for the earlier studies, making it hard to compare them with measurements taken 50 years later. And it is not just the practical techniques that have changed; statistical methods of analysing data have evolved too.

When you look at the set of studies reviewed in the paper in more detail, it seems that although sperm counts do appear to have dropped in some places, they might have risen in others, even in different regions of the same country. In Paris, sperm counts appear to have declined, while they remained stable in another French city, Toulouse.

Many of the original studies were too small to be considered as representative of a population. A re-analysis of the 20 largest studies found that the majority had been conducted before 1970 in New York, where sperm counts seemed particularly high. The later studies were from different places, which meant that sperm counts in one geographical location were compared with counts from somewhere different over a different period of time. Once these studies were removed, the picture looked a little different and sperm quality didn’t seem to be in decline. So perhaps the 1992 review was in fact highlighting differences between different regions, rather than differences over time.

Incomplete picture

Picking apart the studies in this review paper is one thing, but what does the research post-1992 tell us? The picture is mixed, with some studies still showing evidence for a decline in some places and others showing sperm counts have remained stable. To take two examples, a Finnish study published last year found that men born towards the end of the 1980s had lower sperm counts on average than those born at the beginning of the same decade. But Danish research that has been taking semen samples from young men about to begin military service has found no decline in sperm quality in 5,000 volunteers so far.

Geographical location seems to make a difference, but the lack of studies conducted in low-income countries makes it difficult to establish a full picture. A paper published this year highlights the fact that even studies from middle-income countries have rarely included the poorest people.

So, twenty years on from the BMJ paper we cannot say we have a complete picture about sperm counts globally. We can say that sperm counts are declining in some places, and this needs to taken seriously. But from the best evidence it seems this crisis is not happening everywhere. And without new and carefully controlled studies, we are likely to spend many more years in the dark over this issue. It is only by looking carefully at where counts are and are not falling, using the most accurate methods available, that we might find any clue to the cause.

Google must answer EU antitrust concerns over search

Google has "a matter of weeks" to allay concerns it is abusing its dominant position in the search engine market, the European Commission has said.

An investigation by Europe's antitrust head Joaquin Almunia looked at whether Google gave preferential treatment to its own services in its search results.

Mr Almunia said the company must now "offer remedies" swiftly.

A Google spokesman said the company disagreed with the conclusions, but would work to resolve the matter.

"We're happy to discuss any concerns they might have," Google spokesman Al Verney said.

"Competition on the web has increased dramatically in the last two years since the commission started looking at this and the competitive pressures Google faces are tremendous."

Formal proceedings

The commission had been investigating Google since November 2010 following complaints from several rivals.

In a statement, Mr Almunia said Google had the chance to outline steps to address the claims, rather than face formal action.

"Should this process fail to deliver a satisfactory set of remedies, the ongoing formal proceedings will of course continue," he said.

The investigation outlined four areas where Google's practices "may be considered as abuses of dominance", Mr Almunia said. They are:

The manner in which Google displays "its own vertical search services differently" from other, competing products.

How Google "copies content" from other websites - such as restaurant reviews - to include within their own services.

The "exclusivity" Google has to sell advertising around search terms people use.

Restrictions surrounding portability of advertising content which prevents "seamless transfer" to other non-Google platforms.

Mr Almunia said he had outlined these concerns in a letter to Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

Apple's Cook top-paid US CEO in 2011

Apple chief executive Tim Cook topped the list of the best-paid CEOs in the US in 2011 thanks to stock options that put him more than $300 million above his next rival, a Wall Street Journal survey showed Monday.

Cook, who took the helm of the iPhone and iPad maker in August last year, two months before the death of founder Steve Jobs, clocked in total compensation of $378 million.

Cook earned $900,000 for his annual salary and $900,000 for his annual incentives.

But he scooped up a cool $376 million in restricted stock grants, based on Apple's stock price at the time.

Another Silicon Valley big gun, the head of Oracle, Larry Ellison, came in second place with less than a fifth of Cook's pay, at $76 million.

The study, conducted by Hay Group for the Journal covered the 300 largest US public companies by revenue.

Television broadcaster CBS head Leslie Moonves was in number-three position at $69 million, followed by the chief executive of struggling retailer JCPenney, Ronald Johnson, who pulled in $53 million.

Motorola Mobility chief Sanjay Jha was ranked fifth, at $47 million.

The remainder of the top 10, in descending order, were the CEOs of Citigroup, Viacom, Motorola Solutions, Walt Disney, and Ford Motor, whose Alan Mulally earned $29 million.

Apple's Cook could see his compensation climb further into the stratosphere this year. Apple shares have leaped 29 percent in the year to date, and on Monday were up 5.5 percent in late New York trade.

France's Hollande steals show in world stage debut

By JAMEY KEATEN / The Associated Press

CHICAGO — In his debut in international summitry, Francois Hollande has made a splash — and held his ground on some sharply defined positions.

France's new leader grabbed attention at both the weekend's Group of Eight summit in Camp David and at the NATO summit in Chicago ending Monday, parlaying his mandate from voters in a May 6 election and showing he has his finger on the pulse of the public back home.

An informal European Union summit on Wednesday will cap his whirlwind first week as French president.

Hollande first sped to Berlin to meet Germany's chancellor, he then painstakingly formed a Socialist-led French Cabinet. He jetted to Washington, where he mused about his cheeseburger fetish in an Oval Office get-to-know with President Barack Obama that helped replace memories of Hollande's America-friendly predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Hollande held firm on his two trenchant positions at the summits: His call for pro-growth measures to juice up Europe's lagging economy overshadowed the G-8 meeting, and his promise to break with NATO by pulling French troops out of Afghanistan ahead of other alliance members weighed heavily on the summit in Chicago.

"There was no embarrassing moment for him, despite the fact that he came right out of the election," said Dominique Moisi, a political analyst with the French Institute of International Relations, IFRI. "The difficulty starts when he comes home ... but we all know there won't be any miracles."

So far, it's mostly been style over substance. Hollande offered few details about how he would put his plans into practice.

The Socialist French president fills a seat that was occupied by Sarkozy, who was often dubbed "Sarko the American" and whose support for a hard line in Iran and NATO's intervention in Libya drew plaudits from U.S. leaders — including Obama. But at home, Sarkozy's brash, in-your-face demeanor in part led to his fall from grace at the ballot box.

So far, Hollande has ushered in a more inclusive style as French president, and the charm offensive has borne fruit. The timing of the summits also played in his favor: Obama, whose re-election hopes hinge in large part on the American economy's prospects, echoed Hollande's call for pro-growth policies at Camp David on Friday and Saturday. That gave Hollande some momentum going into the NATO summit, where some allies frowned on his early-pullout promises both privately and publicly.

Post-electoral honeymoons don't last forever. Much of the questioning that Hollande faced by his trailing press corps centered on his persona, such as his travels in America in 1974 to study a nascent fast food phenomenon and his rapport with other world leaders. Obama playfully teased him for wearing a tie to the casual-dress summit in the Camp David woods and called Hollande his "translator" for French journalists.

When one reporter at a French press scrum outside Hollande's Chicago hotel Monday asked the president if he felt "American," Hollande replied that "I don't know how to take the compliment, if that is one."

"But I try to be a Frenchman, who discusses with the Americans — in the hope of making them understand that we have common interests," he said. "I don't try to play the American, and I don't need to play the Frenchman: Be myself."

It was aw-shucks charm like that that helped put Hollande, a national lawmaker from rural central France, into the presidential Elysee Palace. Hollande made his name nationally for his quick-witted criticism against a string of conservative governments in France over the last decade, while leader of the Socialist Party.

As president, he's morphing from critic to cheerleader. At the summits he subtly claimed credit for France putting on the agenda such ideas as growth, European-supported recapitalization of ailing Spanish banks or eurobonds to help revive Europe's finances. But he's maintained his sober mindset about Europe's big economic problems.

But his personal international rapports are being tested. For all their seeming comity in Berlin last week, Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel have lined up against one another politically on both Afghanistan and their prescriptions for European economic health. She champions austerity, he wants pro-growth policies; in Chicago, she reiterated her "in together, out together" mantra for NATO's Afghan mission.

Hollande came to the U.S. summits a virtual unknown and benefiting from relatively low expectations. He had first-time introductions to Obama, Merkel, prime ministers Dimitri Medvedev of Russia and Britain's David Cameron all this week. An aide to one of the other G-8 summit attendees, who declined to be identified so as to speak freely about inside details, said that Hollande came across as firm, articulate, and knowledgeable about the agenda items.

"So far, so good," the political analyst, Moisi, said of Hollande's debut on the world stage. "I think what he had to prove was that he was a credible president of France. People had thought that he wasn't: Not just 'Mr. Normal'" — an image Hollande campaigned on — "but banal."

Investors Pummel Facebook

By JACOB BUNGE, AARON LUCCHETTI and GINA CHON
Stock Falls 11% in First Full Day of Trading; Complaints of Too Many Shares.

Criticism of the Facebook Inc. stock deal grew as the shares dropped below their offering price in their first full day of trading Monday, wiping $11.5 billion off the social network's market value.

The company, its investment bankers and the Nasdaq Stock Market came under fire for failing to ensure a smooth debut for one of the most anticipated deals in recent memory. Facebook shares, which began trading Friday at $38 and managed to add just 23 cents by the end of that day, fell 11% Monday to $34.03.

The selloff came partly because some investors who were allotted more Facebook shares than they expected moved to pare their holdings, said people familiar with the matter. Retail, or individual, investors usually are allocated up to 20% of the total shares allotted in an IPO, but in Facebook's case, retail allocation was around 25%, the people said.

Days before the initial public offering, Facebook, whose executives played an active role in the IPO process, according to people familiar with the matter, increased both the price and the number of shares being offered. As a result, many retail investors weren't hungry for more shares once trading began, according to the people.

A representative for Facebook declined to comment. The company raised $16 billion in the offering.

George Brady, a 66-year-old recruiter in North Carolina, bought 1,000 shares of Facebook a few minutes after it opened for trading Friday. He said by Monday morning, he sold his holding, taking a $2,770 loss.

Mr. Brady said he tried not to purchase the shares in the first place, but was unable to withdraw his order on his Charles Schwab account, calling the situation "ridiculous." Technical problems on the Nasdaq Stock Market prevented some investors from confirming their trades or trade cancellations.

"I was stuck for six hours trying to figure out whether I owned this dog or not," said Mr. Brady. He said he has been in touch with Schwab. Schwab didn't return a call requesting comment.

Facebook's offering, one of the biggest U.S. IPOs, was supposed to burnish the reputations of Morgan Stanley, the deal's lead banker, as an underwriter, and Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. as the listing exchange of choice for hot technology companies.

"This has been a train wreck," said one hedge fund manager, whose fund also decided to sell some of its shares Monday. He said his fund was allotted 500,000 more Facebook shares than he expected.

The hedge-fund manager acknowledged that his fund and others asked for more than they wanted, thinking that they would only get half or less than they ordered, as usually happens in an IPO that is expected to have high demand. With some investors, including retail shareholders, getting a larger than expected allotment, demand was already dampening.

As a result, he had a bad feeling about Facebook going into the beginning of trading. On Monday, he said he was "spooked." Even though it wasn't a moneymaker, his fund decided to sell some shares because of worries about the flood of shares that could hit the market later after employee lockup periods end.

Some investors faulted Morgan Stanley and Facebook for overloading the market with too many shares. Just before the offering, Facebook expanded the number of shares by 25%, to 421.2 million.

"The underwriters completely screwed this up," said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities. The offering "should have been half as big as it was, and it would have closed at $45."

A person familiar with the matter said Morgan Stanley did what it was "paid to do," adding the bank "stood by the client and supported the issue."

At $34 a share, Facebook has a price-to-earnings ratio, a measure of how expensive or cheap a stock is, of about 85 times projected earnings for the next 12 months, according to CapitalIQ. By comparison, Google Inc. trades at 13 times earnings.

"Facebook's IPO priced at a level well-above where we foresaw compelling 12-month returns," BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield said in a research note Monday. With revenue and earnings growth decelerating in 2012, "we find Facebook's current valuation unappealing."

The stock closed a hair above the $38 IPO price during Friday's trading debut, after Morgan Stanley stepped in to prop it up, according to people familiar with the matter. As the deal's so-called stabilizing agent, Morgan Stanley could support the stock through a pool of Facebook shares known as an overallotment. But on Monday, the shares lost their footing, at one point touching $33.

"What you saw today was a marketplace that felt pretty certain the bankers were long more stock than they wanted," Michael Shea, managing partner at Direct Access Partners, a financial-services firm, said Monday.

"You could see the halfhearted attempt to hold the stock at 38 this morning during premarket trading," Mr. Shea said. "When the decision was made and the buyer stepped away, it took less than five minutes for that stock to trade down a dollar."

Mr. Shea, whose firm has only institutional clients, declined to comment about whether his clients bought or sold Facebook stock on Monday.

Steve Bishop, the portfolio manager for the RS Technology Fund, with $235.3 million in assets, said his fund bought shares of Facebook through the allocation process last week, but then quickly sold them "somewhere in the 40s" shortly after the company when public on Friday.

Mr. Bishop said he felt the IPO "was getting a little frothy," which is why he decided to sell directly after the IPO. He also described the IPO as "overhyped."

While some investors received more shares than they expected, one person familiar with the deal said many institutions were allocated "dramatically less" than the amounts they had requested. The person noted that the shares opened about $4 above the offering price on Friday and said Nasdaq's technology snafus left even Morgan Stanley's bankers and traders in the dark on the status of their positions.

Problems with Nasdaq's IPO mechanism Friday had led to an approximate 20-minute period in which the exchange stopped confirming new orders for the shares, as well as cancellations or changes to standing orders.

Traders said there weren't any problems trading the shares by later Monday.

Nasdaq officials told clients they would have to seek "accommodation" through the exchange's rules for handling disputed transactions. In such situations, brokers can petition the exchange to get compensation for losses proven to be the result of Nasdaq systems failures.

Nasdaq hopes to earmark at least $13 million to resolve bad trades, a company spokesman said. But this figure may undershoot the financial damage sustained by brokers who made up losses for retail and institutional investors that had trades affected by the glitches.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, a Wall Street regulator, will oversee arbitrating and distributing the money to firms, Nasdaq told traders Monday. Finra will review trading data and issue a report to the exchange detailing the "total value of all valid claims," according to the notice. A spokeswoman for Finra declined to comment.

Exchange staff told brokers Monday that the process of parsing Friday's trades and determining which losses would be compensated could take one to three weeks, according to people involved in the discussions. Nasdaq is planning to hold a conference call Tuesday to further detail the process, brokers said.