Abstract
NRC projects in Africa and learning's in the research practices in low-income communities.

Jussi Impiö is Research Leader of Nokia Research Africa (NORA) in Nairobi. NORA conducts socio-cultural research in Sub-Saharan Africa and together with non-governmental organizations and local universities creates communication solutions to assist in socio-economical development in Africa.

Jussi joined Nokia in 2003 as Senior Research Scientist and has conducted research in the areas of mobile video, civic activism and citizen journalism. Prior to Nokia he has worked as Concept Manager at Clothing+ Corp. and as Researcher at the University of Lapland.

Jussi has co-authored 4 academic publications and holds 10 patents.

Summary of Seminar
Mobile technology is already playing a major role in economic development in Africa.  What might be the impact if that technology was specifically designed for these users? This is the mission of Nokia Research Africa (NoRA); to develop services and devices that meet the specific needs of low income communities in sub Saharan Africa.

There are three stages to the group's work. First, field research is conducted in African communities. Second, the team works on concept design and prototyping. And finally field trials are held and further adjustments made. The team has a strong record of getting products out as a result of its research.

Jussi described three projects he has been involved in recently:

• 90% of jobs in Sub Saharan Africa are microenterprises. NoRA is developing a micro entrepreneur tool kit that will be rolled out in five countries.
• 70% of Sub Saharan Africans are members of informal banking groups where money is saved collectively. NoRA is looking at ways of bringing these groups together to share expertise.
• There is a growing music informal music industry in African slum communities. NoRA is working with NGOs to help understand the dynamics of this.
• The average age on Africa is 18. NoRA's Youth Africa project seeks to understand how youth segment themselves. Over 400 interviews have been conducted so far and the project is due to be completed by the end of June.

When thinking about the introduction of technology into Africa, Jussi suggests that an analogy with biology may be helpful.  Just as when a new species is introduced to a habitat, a new technology will have all kinds of unintended consequences in its environment, not all of them desirable. Therefore it is crucial to think through any potential harms and how these might be controlled. Jussi also suggested some rules of thumb for working in the field of technology for development in the Africa:

• Think hard about what is the exact source problem you are trying to solve
• Make sure you try out ‘horror' scenarios
• Work with local organizations
• Talk to journalists - they are often the best sources of information
• Talk to governments; it is very hard to achieve anything in Africa unless you involve government from the earliest stages
• Conduct long and controlled pilots
• Educate users with the skills they will need
• Don't trust your instincts too much - we can make the mistake of thinking we ‘know' Africa, attributing to it a single culture
• Expect the worst! It is better to have thought through what could go wrong
• Be real(ideal)istic. It is important to understand the magnitude of the problems you are dealing with while keeping motivated by the belief that your work could have a major impact

In the four years since a State Council think tank, the Development Research Center, bluntly declared the failure of three decades of healthcare reform, China has placed a high political priority on designing, building and financing a modern, equitable health delivery system that serves every last one of its 1.3 billion people. As publisher of practice-building trade magazines for medical specialists in China and India, Jeffrey Parker has developed unique and valuable perspectives on what's wrong with China's healthcare system -- and how Indian practitioners are able to deliver results despite a per-capita GDP that is roughly half of China's. Through an unprecedented China-India training exchange, Mr. Parker has begun testing whether Indian models of self-financed grassroots medical startup practices can help doctors shake free of China’s Stalinist paralysis without having to wait for sweeping programmatic reforms that are always on the horizon, but seem never to come. What's more, would such grassroots empowerment models not create unprecedented opportunities for participation by international investors who up to now have been largely marginalized in China's healthcare development?

In this lunchtime colloquium, Mr. Parker reviews his experiences in China and India over the past six years and looks at several exciting recent developments in China. These include:

• An ambitious rural reimbursement scheme that already has begun to complete a nationwide healthcare safety net. The program is creating a vast pool of funds to finance rural medical services, but how will Beijing populate the countryside with sustainable grassroots practices?
• The first domestic healthcare IPO, by which Aier Ophthalmology raised some $50 million as one of 28 debut listings in the Shenzhen's new "ChiNext" Growth Enterprise Market. New wind in the sails of healthcare privatization?
• Licensing reforms that have begun delinking doctors' certification from their "work unit" hospitals under trials in Beijing and Yunnan, removing a vexing obstacle to hands-on surgical training of young practitioners. Will the breaking of senior doctors' "skills monopoly" create opportunities for private-sector training programs that will shake up China's Soviet-style residency programs?

Jeffrey Parker has lived in Greater China since 1990, first as a journalist and since 2003 as a publisher. His transition from chronicler of China's historic rise to active proponent of its economic development gives him a unique perspective on the opportunities still opening up in China -- and the challenges facing anyone keen to participate. With a twin B.A. in Asian Studies and Geography from U.C. Santa Barbara and Masters training in Journalism from Columbia University, Parker trimmed his sails for a China career from an early age. After early editorial jobs in New York and Washington, D.C., he was dispatched to Beijing by United Press International as senior correspondent in 1990. During the next 10 years with UPI and then Reuters, he covered a wide range of political, economic and social stories from postings in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Peoples Republic. In his final two years at Reuters, Parker got his first taste of media development, launching local-language multimedia news and video feeds in China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia. Since 2003, Parker has built up a family of world-class doctors' magazines serving more than 50,000 specialists in China and India from the Shanghai base of ILX Media Group, where he is editorial director, chief operating officer, a corporate director and investor. Among his objectives is to help foster a badly needed transformation of medical practice across China by inspiring grassroots doctors to deliver high-quality, cost-effective services in rural and less-developed communities left behind by government health care.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the attached paper at the session on Friday. The paper is part of a larger project on how we should regulate conduct that is socially productive, but poses some risk of harm to others. The official technique for risk regulation in the modern administrative state is some form of cost/benefit analysis: we tote up the expected social benefits and expected social costs of alternative courses of conduct, and opt for that course that is expected to generate the largest aggregate benefits (net of costs). There is a vast and growing critical literature on the normative, conceptual, and administrative problems with cost/benefit analysis. I agree with many of those criticisms. But my particular interest in this project is the objection raised to any aggregative procedure, on the familiar deontological ground that it fails to respect the distinct rights and interests of individuals. Accepting the moral impulse behind that objection as understandable, maybe even compelling, the question I want to address is whether nonconsequentialists have offered—or could offer‐‐ any coherent alternative to aggregation in this context.

The short answer is, I don’t think so. I want to underscore that this is not a broadside attack on nonconsequentialist principles or a categorical defense of consequentialism. It is a domain‐specific concern. For reasons I touch on briefly in this chapter, I think that deontological principles by their nature are the wrong tools to solve the fundamental problems raised by accidental (unintended) harms, and that this reality has been obscured by the limited and somewhat peculiar focus of the immense philosophical literature on harm to others.

While these larger concerns are in the background, this chapter mostly focuses on the central deontological objection to aggregative solutions to regulating potentially harmful conduct: that it violates our duty not to act in a fashion that will result in harm to others.

Please do not cite to without permission of the author.