This Special Issue provides reflections after 20 years, summarized in 12 papers, on the controversial issue of alleged decline in human sperm output due to global oestrogen pollution by industrial chemicals.Virtanen et al. 1 offer no specific critique of the original papers but focus on male reproductive function in their native country because Finnish men allegedly have better sperm production than other Scandinavians. Despite this, from longitudinal studies of semen quality among European populations, they believe that young Finnish men had a declining sperm output between 1998 and 2006. They interpret this as Finland's following a global trend of impaired male reproductive health. As these multicentre studies adopt an uncontrolled population sampling methodology, the lack of evidence that the men included by participating centres truly represent the general male populations from which they were sampled means that inferences, whether relating to either time or place, remain unconvincing.In a thoughtful, articulate contribution, Anawalt 2 concludes that the Carlsen meta-analysis 3 was flawed, its conclusions wrong and the putative explanatory hypothesis therefore lacks foundation. Nevertheless, he argues that these misadventures served as sentinels for potential perils of widespread man-made chemical pollutants, and raised scientific and community awareness of risks to male reproductive health. He considers it likely that some new industrial chemicals ubiquitous in the environment are harmful to male human reproductive health, an area of scientific inquiry that was largely ignored before these articles appeared. In channelling Rachel Carson, however, he overlooks the consequences of her unbalanced pronouncements on the hazards of DDT. While DDT may have harmed certain wildlife (though this is disputed), there is no evidence that DDT ever harmed any humans. Indeed, the elimination of DDT from public health use for malaria prophylaxis had disastrous health and medical impacts involving the resurgence of malaria, causing millions of excess deaths and contributing to drug resistance, a public health disaster detailed elsewhere. 4 These salient unintended consequences of well-meaning but tunnel-visioned activism are less well known than deserved. Anawalt's sneaking admiration for what may seem harmless 'crying wolf' raises the question whether we can expect to make progress through sound science by accepting uncritically false alarms, however implausible, if they make flamboyant enough claims that attract public clamour. The endless opportunities for activists or crusading journalists to employ the hollow echo chamber of the internet for propagation of 'scares' among the general population are hardly a responsible voice of science. Can we justify shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre on the grounds that it serves as an impromptu fire drill?Fisch and Braun 5 concur with Anawalt 2 that allegations of a worldwide decline in sperm output do not withstand scientific scrutiny. Summarising post-Carlsen studies, they find th...