Yes - from the article:

"The fact that the big companies are run by white, middle-aged males who have the same feeling—that they would never do it—plays a major role"

this seems like yet another bash at the white male, but if you think of it there's already vasectomies and if you're rich you'll have a few children followed by a vasectomy. this is for the poorer individual that doesn't want the burden but might want to reverse it, which is more appealing to the non-rich-guy. and maybe in india* you can still be seen a virile as it's reversible. *i don't know about indian culture.

I don't know, the assertion in the article makes little sense. The white part shouldn't play any role at all in this; easily reversible male contraception has been a dream of many for a long time. These companies want to maximize profits, and it's obvious that they aren't limiting their products and procedures to what they as middle-aged men would want. If they were, there'd be no products or procedures for women.

I think it's far more likely that these companies don't want to fund trials as it won't be nearly as profitable to them as current contraceptive options. If this was a pill instead, I have no doubt that the companies would champ at the bit for it. I think it's not coincidence that they could only find a non-profit to fund the trials for this specific product/procedure.

yes, i think whiteness is purely incidental. it's just another not-all-statement.