The current tests have very low accuracy (the article says 40%). These tests are likely being administered by trained professionals, and if the cost of each tes

The current tests have very low accuracy (the article says 40%). These tests are likely being administered by trained professionals, and if the cost of each test is sufficiently high (for materials, and that it would take several tests to get a reasonably accurate answer), it might be cheaper in the long run (or even short periods of time) to buy these medical professionals smartphones and the lenses instead of the supplies for existing tests. If the cost of a smartphone and lens is greater than a full microscope with a webcam attached (to allow the computer or a dedicated device to do the analysis), then smartphones are still a useful proof of concept as well as being far more portable and being easier to power. It doesn't seem logical on the face, but once you start adding up costs it's quite likely that it would be, especially if they can convince a smartphone manufacturer to donate a few hundred or thousand units (I'm sure that there are smartphone manufacturers donating money to the anti-malaria efforts already, as it's good publicity and can be used in advertising. Donating smartphones instead of money is a very small step, as well as possibly cheaper - the retail price for a smartphone is not the price of manufacture).