European proponents of the much-heralded post-genomics revolution are suffering the curse of Sisyphus. They seem condemned for ever to gain support for European-level research infrastructures — and then to watch as politicians tip the plans, like Sisyphus's boulder, back to the bottom of the hill.

Two facilities, the European Mouse Mutant Archive and the European Bioinformatics Institute, are about to witness this perverse manoeuvre yet again. Everyone — politicians, bureaucrats and scientists — acknowledges the fundamental importance of these facilities, created with the help of the commission's fourth Framework programme of research (FP4). Yet a sustained commitment to keep them going — let alone to help them keep pace with genomics — has failed to materialize. After appearing to be convinced, the commission has backed down at crucial moments.

Consider the 1999 launch of FP5, which unexpectedly declared that “routine” services could not be funded (see Nature 402, 4; 1999). This was a response to the political aversion of European Union member states to giving long-term support for service facilities. No other organization came to the rescue. Widespread outrage forced the commission last year to reallocate a small part of Framework money for the infrastructures using a new — and temporary — definition of “routine”. This money has just started to be allocated (see page 967).

Since his appointment in 1999, research commissioner Philippe Busquin has been sympathetic to the problem of infrastructures. And he has shown true scientific vision, appearing to embrace a desire for a rational exploitation of the human genome sequence in Europe. The implications were that the research infrastructures needed for this would be resolved in FP6, due to be launched next year.

It now seems that FP6 will not deliver the goods after all. A draft of the commission's first proposal for the programme indicates that the basis for commission support will remain essentially unchanged: no funds for routine upkeep of established facilities, even though total money for infrastructures will increase.

Member states can change this if they want, but national interests tend to dominate their thinking, and a unanimous voice is unlikely to be heard. And researchers? Like Sisyphus, yet again.