Before turning to the actual expert narratives, I will give a brief overview of the main Dutch institutes and their functions, the institutional landscape as it were. The Ministries of Health and of Agriculture are the two major policymaking bodies in the domain of infectious diseases, while local (Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdiensten, GGD) and national (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, RIVM) public health institutes have an executive task. University Medical Centres (UMCs) play a more independent role. A central advisory body is the Dutch Health Council (Gezondheidsraad, GR) . The Health Council is an advisory body that presents the 'state of affairs' of science, and explicitly advises policy, it does not make it (Interview Knottnerus & De Visser. 30 January 2006; Bijker et al. 2009 ). In 2005, the Centre for Infectious Disease Control was established as a specialised body for scientific advice and outbreak control, emerging as a new boundary organisation in the Dutch institutional landscape (CIDC, see Ministry of Health 7 December 2004). The Dutch advisory sector for infectious diseases can thus be characterised as a 'corporatist policy arrangement', with a restricted and formally accredited set of experts that act on personal title (Halffman and Hoppe 2005, p. 137; Bijker et al. 2009, pp. 85-86) . On an international level we find the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and of course the World Health Organization (WHO).