Speaking as someone who suffers from partial ED (which is very frowned upon by so many doctors I've personally met; considering my age), I'd say no.
After just reading about it @ Askmen's and I don't know how to put it. A pill that somehow reduces sperm altogether (seriously, zero..) "whilst retaining sexual characteristics of a male"? How and what happen if one were to orgasm? Minus the cum? Personally IMO it wouldn't be natural if that were to happen. To me it just doesn't make sense.
Long term socio-economic wise - I would consider this as nothing more than an opening a political invitation for the hardcore feminism to further their craziness and all. Any scientific discoveries that restricts, or limits any naturalistic instinct of a man WOULD ALWAYS be under their radar. I bet they'd be excited in seeing this.
---
Reading some of the quotes in the articles I've quickly read so far:
"The tests suggest there would be no side-effects on men’s sexual or general health, despite concerns that the approach could affect blood pressure. Dr Ventura said the only “stumbling block” was likely to be the reduced volumes of fluid ejaculated.
“Some men might worry about that,” he said. “But a lot of women might think it was better, not as messy as normal.”
In addition, it does not protect against AIDS and other STDs. Many health professionals worry that its introduction could increase the spread of these diseases by reducing the role of the condom.
Will it affect men's ability to have children in the future?It is completely reversible. In the preliminary trials, the sperm concentrations of all 66 men returned to pre-study levels within 16 weeks.
---
16 weeks who wants to wait that long?
Thus IMO - What a waste of money over a medical invention that still doesn't even address the crisis of our lifetime. When I'm ready to buy my ETF stocks folio I'd steer away from whoever companies making this.